<head>II. Affairs of Greece</head><head>Three Classes of Anti-Roman Statesmen</head>In the first place I will ask my readers after reflection to pronounce on the conduct of Deinon and Polyaratus.
For, as the dangers were then great and the change of circumstances abrupt, not only at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rhodes&groupId=931&placeId=1665">Rhodes</a> but in nearly all other states,
it will be, I think, of some service to examine into the principles of the leading politicians in each place and decide which of them prove to have acted in a rational manner and which to have failed in their duty;
so that their successors, with these examples before them, may in similar circumstances be enabled without fail to pursue the course which is desirable and avoid that which is the reverse, and should not, by failing to see at the very end of their lives where the path of honour lies, dishonour all they may have achieved in the past.
Now there were three classes of men who were accused for their conduct in the war with Perseus.
The first consisted of those who did not indeed view with pleasure the final decision of the struggle and the subjection of the whole world by one power, yet neither supported the Romans in any way nor opposed them, but as it were committed the result to Fortune.
The next class was composed of those who were glad to see matters coming to a decisive issue and wished Perseus success, but were unable to impose their views on their fellow-citizens and compatriots.
Finally, there were those who did convert their states to their views and involve them in alliance with Perseus.
Walbank Commentary