Continuing on from the previous article, part of the Roman move against rivals in the East was the war with Antiochus. The Senate's policy followed Scipio's such that Antiochus had to not only be driven out of Greece, but his power in Asia Minor reduced such that he could have no independent foreign policy. Scipio believed that this was the only way peace could be achieved.
It is interesting to compare how the Roman's dealt with the Aetolian's, an ally of Antiochus, in 191 after a large sea battle off Cape Corycus where the Roman's prevailed. To quote H.H. Scullard:
The Aetolian Embassy which had come to Rome at the end of 191 had been offered hard terms: unconditional surrender or the immediate payment of 1000 talents and the renunciation of an independent foreign policy.I think it is safe to argue that by 190 BC the price for being under the umbrella of the Roman Peace was that city-states, leagues and kingdoms would not have an independent foreign policy - that was now solely the domain for the Roman Senate. Considering how often the 'great and powerful friends doctrine' [GAPF] of foreign policy has been discussed on this website, I am sure modern parables can be drawn. Maybe we can argue that Pax Romana was not about civil, political, economic or military deference - but about foreign policy submission.
