<head>Definition of Treachery</head>I have often had occasion to wonder where the truth lies about many human affairs and especially about the question of traitors.
I therefore wish to say a few words on the subject appropriate to the times I am dealing with,
although I am quite aware that it is one which is dic to survey and define; it being by no means easy to decide whom we should really style a traitor.
It is evident that we cannot pronounce offhand to be traitors men who take the initiative in engaging in common action against certain kings and princes, nor again those who at the bidding of circumstances induce their countries to exchange their established relations for other friendships and alliances.
Far from it; in view of the fact that such men have often conferred the greatest benefit on their country.
Not to draw examples from far-off times, what I say can easily be observed from the very circumstances we are dealing with.
For if Aristaenus had not then in good time made the Achaeans throw off their alliance with Philip and change it for that with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a>, the whole nation would evidently have suffered utter destruction.
But now, apart from the temporary safety gained for all the members of the League, this man and that council were regarded as having beyond doubt contributed to the increase of the Achaean power;
so that all agreed in honouring him not as a traitor, but as the benefactor and preserver of the land.
And the same is the case with others who according to change of circumstances adopt a similar policy of action.
Walbank Commentary