Politics in the Aetolian Koinon at the Coming of Rome

Política en el koinon etolio a la llegada de Roma

Giorgos Mitropoulos*
Institute of Historical Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation

Abstract: This paper aims to give an overview of the development of the relations between the Aetolian Koinon and Rome through the epigraphic testimonies. Emphasis will be placed especially in the period after the Roman-Seleucid War, that is, after 188 BC, since this period remains relatively unknown concerning the internal and «international» politics of the Aetolian Koinon. Moreover, the end of the Roman-Seleucid War and the Treaty of Apameia had severe consequences for the Koinon and established more firmly the impact of the Roman res publica over the Greek East. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine the way the Aetolian Koinon was affected by the coming of the Roman power, as it is reflected in the inscriptions.

Keywords: Aetolian Koinon, 2nd century B.C., Roman Republic, magistracies, Hellenistic epigraphy, diplomacy.

Resumen: El objetivo de este artículo es ofrecer una visión general del desarrollo de las relaciones entre el koinon etolio y Roma a través de los testimonios epigráficos. Se hará especial hincapié en el período posterior a la guerra contra Antíoco, es decir, después del 188 a. C., ya que este período sigue siendo relativamente desconocido en lo que respecta a la política doméstica e «internacional» del koinon etolio. Además, el final de la guerra contra Antíoco y el Tratado de Apamea tuvieron graves consecuencias para el koinon y consolidaron el impacto de la res publica romana sobre el Oriente griego. Por lo tanto, sería interesante examinar cómo afectó al koinon etolio la llegada del poder romano, tal como se refleja en las inscripciones.

Palabras clave: Koinon etolio, siglo ii a. C., República romana, magistraturas, epigrafía helenística, diplomacia.

* Correspondence to: Giorgos Mitropoulos, Institute of Historical Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation | National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – g.mitro@hotmail.com – http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1590-9367.

How to cite: Mitropoulos, Giorgos (2025), «Politics in the Aetolian Koinon at the Coming of Rome», Veleia, 42, 33-42. (https://doi.org/10.1387/veleia.26251).

Received: 2024 may 8; Final version: 2024 july 5.

ISSN 0213-2095 - eISSN 2444-3565 / © 2025 UPV/EHU Press

This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

 

This paper aims to give an overview of the development of the relations between the Aetolian Koinon and Rome using numerous epigraphic testimonies as references. Emphasis will be placed especially in the period after the Roman-Seleucid War, that is, after 188 BC, since this period remains relatively unknown concerning the internal and «international» politics of the Aetolian Koinon[1]. Moreover, the end of the Roman-Seleucid War and the Treaty of Apameia had severe consequences for the Koinon and established more firmly the impact of the Roman res publica on the Greek East (Mitropoulos 2019, 84-87). Therefore, it would be interesting to examine the way the Aetolian Koinon was affected by the coming of the Roman power, as it is reflected in the inscriptions. However, the relevant epigraphic evidence is scarce, especially for the period under consideration[2]. In this way, the analysis following below should be seen merely as part of a greater puzzle. Indeed, researchers are based mostly on literary sources, especially Polybios and Livy to reconstruct the history of the Aetolian Koinon and its relations with Rome. A brief historical overview of the Koinon will follow, before moving on to examine the epigraphic testimonies attesting both to its political development and the Aetolian-Roman relations.

According to Strabo, the Aetolian League spanned the mountainous area of Central Greece, which was delimited by the Corinthian Gulf to the south, the Acheloos river to the west, Mount Parnassos to the east and the tribes of the Perrhaebi, Athamanes and Aenianes to the north[3]. In this way, most of the territory initially covered by the Aetolian Koinon was mountainous and isolated from the rest of the Greek world[4].

The Aetolians were initially organized into an ethnos (Larsen 1968, xvi, 79), consisting of three distinct ones: the Ἀποδωτοί, Ὀφιονεῖς and the Εὐρυτάνες[5]. Their first collective appearance in the literary sources is attested in the Iliad of Homer, who stated that the Aetolians inhabited the area between the mouth of the river Euenos and the modern lagoon of Missolonghi and located their ancestral centres in the region of Pleuron and Kalydon, settlements which, however, are not included in the later narrative of Thucydides[6].

From the beginning of the 4th c. BC, the ethnos of the Aetolians was steadily developed and by the end of the same century it was formed into a Koinon with institutions and magistracies. The main institution of the Koinon was the Assembly (synodos), which was convened every autumn in the sanctuary of Thermos and Polybios calls these meetings «ἡ τῶν Θερμικῶν σύνοδος», «the assembly of the Thermika» (Polyb. 18.48.5). In this assembly, the annual league offices were filled and important political decisions were made, for example on matters around peace and war[7]. A second Assembly also existed, the «Panaetolika», and more assemblies could be convened when necessary.

The federal council (synedrion or boula) served as a smaller Aetolian assembly[8]. However, the territorial expansion of the Koinon augmented both the size and the importance of the council for the League’s administration. Indeed, it figures as a decision-making body from the end of the third century BC onwards[9]. The synedrion convened more regularly than the assembly and all member-states of the Koinon were represented according to demographic and economic criteria (see Just. Epit. 33.2.8).

The three highest magistrates of the Aetolian Koinon were the general (strategos), the leader of the cavalry (hipparchos) and the secretary (grammateus). The epigraphic and literary sources seem to indicate that there were no limitations in the election of an individual as strategos, since some persons were generals up to five times[10]. The prominent families of the Koinon’s cities provided many politicians who took up the most significant offices and constituted the «political elite» of the League. These persons must have been often members of the apokletoi, a body that formed the «core government of the Aitolian League» (Funke 2015, 112-113).

Among the top magistracies, the boularchoi should also be mentioned[11]. As Lasagni argues on the basis of epigraphic evidence, this office was among the supreme ones of the Aetolian Koinon, since the boularchos could assist the strategos in his executive functions, sometimes acting in his place in a complementary way (e.g. in case of absence). However, the boularchoi mentioned in the federal documents should be distinguished from the boularchoi attested in civic inscriptions. These were not representatives of the local communities within the central government, but officials nominated at the central level to administrate the integrated territories of the «Greater Aetolia»[12].

Indeed, from the mid-290s onwards the Aetolians controlled the sanctuary of Delphi, expanding further than the traditional eastern limit of the Aetolian territory[13]. Steadily, the Koinon expanded further to the east, incorporating Herakleia Trachis and West Lokris, Aenis, East Lokris, Phokis, Lamian Malis, western Phthiotic Achaia and Dolopia to the north. The Aetolians expanded further to the west, in southern and eastern Akarnania, and in 229 they succeeded even in temporarily incorporating large parts of Thessaly into «Greater Aetolia», thus making the Aetolian Koinon unquestionably the dominant power in mainland Greece against the Antigonid kingdom[14].

The Koinon was in the apogee of its territorial expansion in the 230s and 220s and then again in the period from 196 to 189 BC. Except from its territories in mainland Greece outlined above, the Aetolians exercised influence in the Peloponnese, parts of the Aegean and even the coast of Asia Minor by utilizing treaties of isopoliteia and asylia as instruments for creating bonds with sanctuaries and communities[15]. Therefore, it is clear that the Aetolian Koinon constituted an important power in the Hellenistic world by the end of the 3rd c. BC.

However, the arrival of a new player in the political scene of the Hellenistic world, the Roman res publica, changed the Aetolian politics radically. The Aetolian Koinon was the first Hellenistic state to ally with Rome against another one, the Antigonid kingdom of the king Philip V. A series of negotiations started, leading to the treaty of alliance of controversial dating (autumn 212 or 211 BC). The Roman-Aetolian treaty is attested both in literary and epigraphic sources[16]. More specifically, an inscription found in Thyrrheion in Akarnania, though partly fragmentary, preserves most of it (IG IX, 1² 2, 241 = StV III, 536, cf. now Collezioni epigrafiche della Grecia occidentale 2.2, n. 1) and it is well-studied, so I will not discuss it extensively. I will merely analyze here the main terms of the alliance, since it constitutes the first epigraphic text documenting a treaty between the Roman res publica and a Greek Hellenistic state. The two parties described the terms of the alliance and invited other states to join them in the forthcoming war against the Antigonids. Aetolians and Romans agreed on the division of conquests and the portable spoils: the Aetolians would control any city they conquered and the Romans the moveable booty. Any city taken by Rome would belong to the Aetolians and the moveable booty to the Romans (ll. 4-10: εἰ δέ τινές κα τού̣τ̣ων τῶν ἐθνῶν οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι πόλεις κατὰ κράτος λάβωντι, ταύτας τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰς

[χ]ώρας ἕνεκεν τοῦ δάμου τῶν Ῥωμαίων τῶι δάμωι τῶι τῶν Αἰτωλῶν ἔχειν ἐξέστω· [ὃ] δέ κα παρὲξ τᾶς πόλιος καὶ τᾶς χώρας Ῥωμαῖοι λάβωντι, Ῥωμαῖοι ἐχόντωσαν). Any cities jointly taken by Rome and Aetolia would go to the Aetolians, with the moveable booty being shared (ll. 10-15: εἰ δὲ τινάς καταυτᾶν τᾶμ πολίων Ῥωμαῖοι καὶ Αἰτωλοὶ κοινᾶι λάβωντι, ταύτας τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰς χώ[ρα]ς ἕνεκεν τοῦ δάμου <τῶν Ῥωμαίων> Αἰτωλοῖς ἔχειν ἐξέ[σ]τω· ὃ δὲ κα παρὲξ τᾶς πόλιος λάβωντι, κοινᾶ[ι] [ἀ]μφοτέρ[ω]ν ἔστω). Cities that came over voluntarily to Rome during Roman military operations against them would probably become amici of Rome, but could join the Aetolian Koinon (ll. 15-23). Cities that surrendered voluntarily during common Roman and Aetolian operations could also become members of the Aetolian League. Moreover, according to Livy, the Romans were to provide at least 25 warships (Liv. 26.24.10), while the Aetolians their land forces.

In this way, the road laid open for the beginning of hostilities that would mark the so-called «First Macedonian War». The terms of the treaty referring to Aetolian capture and subsequent control of cities demonstrate their ambition: the Aetolians sought to expand the Koinon northwards and westwards, incorporating parts of Thessaly and Akarnania, valuable to the Koinon, but lost to the Antigonid king Philip V in the previous years[17]. Therefore, this inscription recording the first Aetolian-Roman alliance marks an important step in our discussion on politics and epigraphy in the Aetolian Koinon. It is also interesting that according to Livy, there was a northern limit concerning possible Aetolian territorial gains at the island of Corcyra. This seems plausible, since Rome had interests in the region of the southern Adriatic. However, no such limit is attested in the epigraphic text[18].

The epigraphic text of the treaty demonstrates the impressive lack of interest in territorial gains on the part of the Romans[19]. All conquests are explicitly stated to be ascribed to the Aetolians. Indeed, the Romans showed a continuous lack of interest in territorial benefits until the final conquest of Greece in 146 BC. In this way, the terms of the treaty of 211 seemed very profitable to the Aetolians, since they could easily expand the territory of their Koinon, while Rome was content merely with the movable booty.

The Aetolians, then, allied with Rome against the Antigonids in the so-called First Macedonian War (214-205 BC), but they were forced to agree to a peace treaty with the Macedonian king Philip V in 206 after his successful invasions of the Aetolian heartland. Romans and Aetolians allied again in the Second Macedonian War (200-197 BC) and the role of the Aetolian cavalry under the leadership of Eupolemos was decisive in the battle of Cynoscephalae against Philip (197 BC)[20]. However, after the end of the war the Aetolian relations with the Roman power deteriorated, since the Aetolians did not receive the territories they expected, as for example the Phthiotic Achaea to the east[21]. As a result, the Aetolians allied with the Seleucid king Antiochos the Great against the Romans and invited him to Greece. However, in the course of the Roman-Seleucid War (192-189 BC), the Aetolians were defeated by a large Roman army under the leadership of the consul Marcus Fulvius Nobilior. The defeat and the harsh terms the Romans imposed brought about great changes in the Aetolian Koinon, which was reduced in size and had to align its foreign policy with the Roman, having the same enemies as the Romans[22].

Our sources for the turbulent period of the League’s history following the Roman-Seleucid War are problematic and often vague. The researcher relies mainly on the literary sources, the Roman historian Livy and the Achaean historian and politician Polybios. These authors maintained a mainly hostile attitude towards the Aetolians, since they originated from states whose relationship with the Aetolians was often tense and antagonistic. Still, the researcher relies almost exclusively on these authors for information about the history of the Aetolian League after 188. However, some —indeed very few— epigraphic testimonies might help us understand better this turbulent period.

After the end of the Roman-Seleucid War, two factions were formed in the Aetolian Koinon, conventionally termed in modern research as «pro-Roman» and «anti-Roman» factions[23]. Therefore, it is interesting that, according to the epigraphic evidence, the strategoi elected for the years 191-188 (a period roughly coinciding with the Roman-Seleucid War), 184-180 and 177-173 were the same and almost all of them appear to have shared anti-Roman attitudes according to the literary sources:

191-188: Archedamos – Nikandros – Eupolemos – Archedamos

184-180: Nikandros – Proxenos – Archedamos – Thoas – Pantaleon

177-173: Nikandros – Eupolemos – Archedamos – Pantaleon – Thoas[24]

We may interpret the successions of the generals as an indication that the politicians who championed a more aggressive stance against Rome prevailed in the political scene, perhaps as a reaction to the defeat in the Roman-Seleucid War and the harsh and derogatory terms imposed on the Aetolians. After all, it was important for the Greek city-states and the Koina to promote an image of power in the Hellenistic period[25]. The fact that the Koinon was administered by experienced war-leaders, such as Thoas and Eupolemos would have aided in the promotion of an image of a still competent League after its defeat. It cannot be proved that these men were elected because of their political stance, but such a conclusion is at least plausible.

However, it would have been unwise to think that the Aetolian Koinon remained unaffected by the consequences of its territorial losses. One of the gravest consequences of the defeat by the Romans was the Aetolian loss of control of the city of Delphi and the Amphictyony[26]. Indeed, the Amphictyonic council was reorganized to adapt to the new political circumstances until the middle of the decade of 180 BC. A catalogue of the year 178 demonstrates that the Aetolians still possessed six hieromnemones at the Amphictyonic council, but they represented smaller ethne: Two out of six hieromnemones represented the Aenianes, two the Locrians, one the Dorians and another one the city of Herakleia (Syll.3 636). However, a closer look at the epigraphic text discloses a seemingly strange contrast: no one of the six hieromnemones originated from the community he was supposed to represent. For example, the hieromnemones of the Aenianes, Lochagos and Nikias descended from the Aetolian cities of Kallipolis (l. 12: Λοχάγῳ Ἁγήτα Καλλιπολίτῃ) and Kalydon respectively (ll. 12-13: Νικίαι Ἀλεξάνδρου Καλυδωνίωι), while the two Lokrian representatives originated from Pholas and Trichonos in Aetolia[27]. The fact that the six hieromnemones came probably from Aetolian cities might suggest that the Aetolians sought to control the Koinon more firmly and appear as a coherent group. However, it is clear that the Aetolian League tended to dissolve, since the Roman interests were served better by its separation to smaller ethne-Koina, such as those of the Aenianes, the Locrians and the Dorians, already attested in this inscription[28]. Indeed, about ten years later, the Romans will achieve their aim and the Aetolian Koinon will be disintegrated.

As happened with many other Hellenistic states, the fate of the weakened and divided Aetolian Koinon was eventually determined after the end of the Third Macedonian War and the battle of Pydna (168 BC, cf. Liv. 45.31.1-3). The decisive victory of Aemilius Paulus over the Macedonian king Perseus brought about the prevalence of the pro-Roman party in the Aetolian League under the leadership of Lyciscus[29]. However, the Romans sought to neutralize completely the Aetolians, who had proved to be recalcitrant towards their authority. Following Roman intervention, the Koinon was delimited in its initial, «ethnic» nucleus.

Along the same lines, the Romans promoted the creation of smaller and independent Koina in mainland Greece at the expense of the Aetolian Koinon, such as the Aenianes, the Dorians, the Oetaeans and Ozolian Locrians[30]. The new states surrounded the already limited Aetolian League, thus ensuring its more complete control and preventing possible actions against the Roman interests in Greece. Therefore, the secession of these Koina, once parts of the Aetolian Koinon, should be interpreted as the consequence of a Roman Realpolitik which implemented successfully the concept of «divide and conquer». Moreover, many inhabitants of these Koina must have felt that the Aetolian League had failed to manage effectively the socio-economic hardships that deteriorated after the end of the Roman-Seleucid War and prevent the bloody internal strifes that followed. In this way, an independent course away from the Aetolian Koinon must have been welcomed by a great part of the inhabitants.

A few years after the battle of Pydna (ca. 165 BC) is dated an inscription in which a certain Kassandros from Alexandreia Troas was honoured by many Greek cities, as well as by the distinct Koina of the Aetolians, Dorians, Aenianes, Oitaeans and Ozolian Locrians (Syll.3 653 = I. Alexandreia Troas 5). For example, the Koinon of the Aenianes honoured Kassandros with a golden wreath and a bronze statue (Syll.3 653Α, ll. 10-13 and 33 respectively). Therefore, these Koina must have become independent shortly before 165 in order to be organized the federal bodies necessary to decide the bestowal of honours to individuals. Indeed, some researchers have put forward the year 166 on the basis of an inscription that refers to an «agonothetes of the Locrians»[31]. This date also accords with the Aetolian decrees that bestowed the honour of proxenia to some Aenianes from Hypata, the last of which is dated in the years 169-167 (IG IX, 1² 1, 71c, ll. 9-16). Therefore, the epigraphic testimonies seem to confirm that the formation of the new Koina must have occurred shortly after the battle of Pydna, which constitutes an important turning point in the turbulent history of the Aetolian League.

The independence of these Koina marked a new era in the political history of this region of Hellenistic Greece, since numerous inscriptions indicate that they were politically active during the Roman late Republican and imperial period, publishing numerous decrees under the leadership of eponymous archons such as the aeniarches (αἰνιάρχης) for the Koinon of the Aenianes[32]. The Koina of central Greece, created or revived after 168 operated as autonomous states speedily after the battle of Pydna. Therefore, one could support that the long standing and steady participation and interaction of the citizens of these newly-formed Koina with the Aetolian Koinon constituted an important pre-stage of political organization[33]. When these states became independent, their citizens were already experienced in the modus operandi of a Koinon. Ironically, the independence of these Koina occurred in a period when Roman sovereignty was imposed over Greece, restricting significantly any action that could be opposing or interpreted as opposing Roman interests.

I will conclude the paper with a comment on the information the Aetolian decrees of proxenia and politeia provide us for the course of the League after the Second Macedonian War. The bestowal of proxenia and politeia (citizenship) from the Aetolian Koinon to foreign citizens was a usual political practice. However, these epigraphic testimonies can also be interpreted as attempts of the Koinon, under the guidance of its magistrates, to exercise influence and create bonds with prominent men of important communities in a difficult period. For example, it has been argued that the bestowal of politeia and proxenia to citizens of Achaean cities (Patrae and Dyme) and of Aetolian cities on the coast of the Corinthian Gulf, such as Kalydon and Proschion, might indicate the economic difficulties the Koinon faced after the Second Macedonian War[34]. The first inscription runs as follows: σ̣τραταγέοντος Φαινέα̣ Ἀ̣ρ̣σινοέ̣ος τὸ βʹ προξενίαν Αἰτωλοὶ ἔδωκ̣αν καὶ πολιτείαν κατὰ τὸν νόμ̣ον [….] | Ἀ̣γ̣α̣[θί]αι Νικάνορος Καλυδ̣ων̣ίοι. […] κ̣α̣ὶ̣ τ̣ο̣ῖ̣ς̣ υ̣ἱ̣ο̣ῖς Λύκοι, Σιμίᾳ Προσχή̣ο̣ι̣[ς]. «When Phaeneas from Arsinoe was general for the second time (192/191 BC, on the eve of the Roman-Seleucid War), the Aetolians bestowed proxenia and politeia according to the law to Agathias, son of Nikanor from Kalydon, and his sons, Lykos and Simias from Proschion». The second inscription is dated on 185/184 BC on the basis of the third generalship of Alexandros of Kalydon and, according to the epigraphic text, the Aetolian League bestowed proxenia to two citizens of Patrae. This action could be interpreted as an Aetolian attempt to form a network with two presumably important Achaeans a few years after the end of the Roman-Seleucid War and its grave consequences.

It is also interesting to note that the Aetolian honourific decree for Damon of Dyme, dated in 165/164, borrows verbatim two expressions from the decree in honour of the Attald king Eumenes II of Pergamon, dated in 182. More specifically, it is stated that Damon «has made many and great achievements of mighty works» (πολλὰς καὶ μεγάλας ἀποδείξε[ις] [πεποίηται) and also that he «did not neglect any care and ambition» ([σπουδᾶς καὶ] φιλοτιμίας οὐθὲν ἐνλείπων)[35]. In this way, the secretary of the Koinon in 165/164 must have been inspired from an honourific model praising the Attalid king, to honour a prominent citizen of Dyme in a difficult political circumstance for the Aetolian League after the battle of Pydna and the organization of independent Koina (Antonetti 1994, 135). We get the impression of an Aetolian Koinon in search of creating networks with a prominent citizen and even being inspired from a previous, royal model to praise him.

Through the examination of the selected epigraphic texts, we are able to overview the history of the Aetolian Koinon at the coming of Rome from the first alliance between the two states in 211 BC to the steady disintegration of the Koinon after the Roman-Seleucid War and the Third Macedonian War. The inscriptions constitute valuable testimonies for the political changes that occurred in the League and the choices it made in this turbulent period, without the intermediation of biased authors such as Polybios and Livy. For example, thanks to the inscriptions examined, we know that the Amphictyonic council was reorganized after the Roman-Seleucid War, since the Aetolian votes were distributed to smaller ethne, but most of their representatives originated from Aetolian cities. This was a prelude to the final dissolution of the Aetolian League only a few years later, when smaller Koina were created or revived in the territories of the once «Greater Aetolia». The epigraphic evidence indicates that the Aetolian League sought to cope with the unsuccessful results of the Second Macedonian War and afterwards, the Roman-Seleucid War through the bestowal of politeia and proxenia to prominent citizens, but its fate was sealed after the battle of Pydna. The Aetolian Koinon was disintegrated gradually until its final dissolution during the first century BC.

References

Antonetti, C., 1994, «Un decreto etolico inedito del 165/4 a.C. per un acheo di Dime», ZPE 101, 127-135.

Beck, H., 1997, Polis und Koinon. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Struktur der griechischen Bundesstaaten im 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr., Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Bommeljé, L. S., 1987, «The Aetolians. A Greek Ethnos», in: L. S. Bommeljé, P. K. Doorn et al. (eds.), Aetolia and the Aetolians. Towards the Interdisciplinary Study of a Greek Region, Utrecht: Parnassus Press, 13-17.

Bommeljé, L. S., & J. Vroom, 1995, «Deserted and Untilled Land. Aetolia in Roman Times», Pharos 3, 67-130.

Bouchon, R., 2008, «Les Ainianes à l’époque impériale: mémoires d’un peuple polyplanètos», in: G. de Rapper, P. Sintès (eds.), Nommer et classer dans les Balkans, Athènes: École française d’Athènes, 311-321.

Bouchon, R., 2015, «Les comptes des épimélètes de la caisse des affranchissements d’Hypata à l’époque impériale: à propos de deux inscriptions récemment publiées (“ΗΟΡΟΣ” 22-25 [2010-2013], p. 327-341)», ZPE 193, 172-178.

Briscoe, J., 1967, «Rome and the Class Struggle in the Greek World», P&P 36, 3-20.

Champion, C., 2007, «Empire by Invitation. Greek Political Strategies and Roman Imperial Interventions in the Second Century B.C.E.», TAPhA 137, 255-275.

Corsten, T., 1999, Vom Stamm zum Bund. Gründung und territoriale Organisation griechischer Bundesstaaten, München: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Daux, G., 1936, Delphes au IIe et au Ier siècle depuis l’abaissement de l’Etolie jusqu’à la paix romaine 191-31 avant J.-C., Paris: de Boccard.

Deininger, J., 1971, Der politische Widerstand gegen Rom in Griechenland, 217-86 v. Chr., Berlin – New York: de Gruyter.

Eckstein, A., 2006, Mediterranean Anarchy, Interstate War, and the Rise of Rome, Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Eckstein, A., 2008, Rome Enters the Greek East. From Anarchy to Hierarchy in the Hellenistic Mediterranean, 230-170 BC, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Flacelière, R., 1937, Les Aitoliens à Delphes: contribution à l’histoire de la Grèce centrale au IIIe siècle av. J.-C., Paris: E. de Boccard.

Freitag, K., P. Funke & N. Moustakis, 2004, «Aitolia», in: M. H. Hansen, T. H. Nielsen (eds.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 379-390.

Funke, P., 1997, «Polisgenese und Urbanisierung in Aitolien im 5. und 4. Jh. v. Chr.», in: M. Hansen (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 145-188.

Funke, P., 2008, «Die Aitoler in der Ägäis. Untersuchungen zur sogenannten «Seepolitik» der Aitoler im 3. Jh. v. Chr», in: E. Winter (ed.), Vom Euphrat bis zum Bosporus. Kleinasien in der Antike. Festschrift für E. Schwertheim zum 65. Geburtstag, Bonn: Habelt, 253-267.

Funke, P., 2015, «Aitolia and the Aitolian League», in: H. Beck, P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86-116.

Grainger, J., 1999, The League of the Aitolians, Leiden – Boston – Cologne: Brill.

Grainger, J., 2000, Aitolian Prosopographical Studies, Leiden – Boston – Cologne: Brill.

Gruen, E., 1984, The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome, Berkeley – Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Hansen, J., 1996, Warfare and the Evolution of the Aetolian Economy, PhD diss., University of South Florida.

Larsen, J., 1968, Greek Federal States. Their Institutions and History, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lasagni, C., 2012, «I boularchoi in Etolia», Historikά 2, 171-204.

Mackil, E., 2013, Creating a Common Polity: Religion, Economy, and Politics in the Making of the Greek Koinon, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Miranda, E., 2004, «Boularchoi e koina in età classica ed ellenistica», IncidAntico 2, 59-71.

Mitropoulos, G., 2019, «The Sphinx and the She-wolf: Some Remarks on Aetolian Politics after the Antiochian War», Klio 101, 77-106.

Nerantzis, I., 2001, Η Χώρα των Αιτωλών, PhD diss., University of Crete, Rethymno.

Rousset, D., 2015, «Microfederalism in Central Greece. The Dorians and Oitaians», in: H. Beck, P. Funke (eds.), Federalism in Greek Antiquity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 222-230.

Rzepka, J., 2017, Greek Federal Terminology, Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Scholten, J., 2000, The Politics of Plunder: Aitolians and their Koinon in the early Hellenistic era, 279-217 B.C., Berkeley: University of California Press.

Scholten, J., 2003, «The Internal Structure of the Aitolian Union. A Case Study in Ancient Greek Sympoliteia», in: K. Buraselis, K. Zoumboulakis (eds.), The Idea of European Community in History. Conference Proceedings, ΙΙ: Aspects of Connecting Poleis and Ethne in Ancient Greece, Athens: National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 65-80.

Sherk, R., 1990, «The Eponymous Officials of Greek Cities: I», ZPE 83, 249-288.

Tsangari, D., 2007, Corpus des Monnaies d’or, d’argent et de bronze de la Confédération étolienne, Athens: Helicon Interactive.

Walbank, F. W., 1979, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, III, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Woodhouse, W. J., 1897, Aetolia. Its Geography, Topography, and Antiquities, Oxford: Clarendon Press.