Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:24:38.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thrasyboulos’ Thracian Support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David F. Middleton
David F. Middleton
Affiliation:
Wadham College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There has never been any doubt that an important part of Thrasyboulos’ forces in his campaign at Phyle and in the Peiraieus was non-Athenian. Lysias in his funeral oration, 2. 66 ff., gives fulsome praise to the xenoi who fought and died for the return of the democracy. Other honours paid to the living are recorded by Aeschines, 3. 187 f., and in the inscription I.G. II. 10, a decree followed by a list of names grouped by Athenian tribes, some of which are certainly non-Athenian. However, little has been said about who these people were, or why they chose to help the return.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , December 1982 , pp. 298 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 2, 5, 10, 25.

2 See Krenz, P., Phoenix 34 (1980), 298–306; cf. D. Hereward, BSA 47 (1952), 102 f.; Tod, GHI II. 100, p. 8 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 D. Whitehead, ‘The Ideology of the Athenian Metic’, PCPhS(1977)suppl. Vol.4; Clerc, M., Les métèques athéniens (Paris, 1893);Google ScholarGauthier, P., Symbola: les étrangers et la justice dans les cités grecques (Nancy, 1972), pp. 107 f.;Google ScholarFinley, M. I., Studies in land and credit in Ancient Athens, 500–200 BC (New Brunswick, 1952), p. 77; Aristophanes, Achamians 505–8 (metics are bran among the citizens; they are superior to xenoi, who presumably are chaff to be discarded).Google Scholar

4 Aristoph. Byz. fr. 38 (Nauck); Pollux 3. 55; Dem. 29. 3; 57. 55; Lysias 12; Lysias 31. 9; 22. 5+13. On military service see Thuk. 4. 90. 1; 6. 43; 7. 63. 3; cf. Thuk. 1. 143. 1–2.

5 Ath. Pol. 58. 2; MacDowell, D. M., Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators (Manchester, 1963), pp. 18 f., 69 f.;Google ScholarHarrison, A. R. W., The Law of Athens I (Oxford, 1968), pp. 187–99; Whitehead, op. cit. 74 f., 81 f.Google Scholar

6 Tod, GHI II. 97, p. 1 f.

7 Dem. 24. 131; 57. 31, 34; 59. 16.

8 Beloch, J., Griechische Geschichte III (Strassburg and Berlin, 1912–1923), p. 10;Google ScholarAnderson, J. K., Military theory and practice in the age of Xenophon (U. Cal. Press, 1970), pp. 176–7, 191.Google Scholar

9 Diod. Sic. 14. 33. 1 f.

10 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 11.

11 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 12.

12 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 12.

13 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 13.

14 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 19, 25.

15 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 12, 15, 25, 33. See Best, J. G. P., Thracian Peltasts and their influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen, 1969).Google Scholar

16 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 25.

17 A. Hagemann, Griechische Panzerung, pp. 44 f., 142–5, up-dated and improved by Lyuba Ognenova, ‘Les cuirasses de bronze trouvées en Thrace’, BCH 85 (1961), 501–38, and by Anderson, J. K., Military theory and practice in the age of Xenophon, pp. 226 n. 43, 36, 113.Google Scholar

18 Thuk. 7. 27, 29; Aristophanes, Acharnians 148 f.

19 The increasing importance of this deity in Athens in the second half of the fifth century is discussed below.

20 Jacoby, FGH suppl. 368F6b; schol. Plat. Resp. 327a; Hesych. s.v. Bendis, Pheraia, Bousbaton.

21 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 11. Near by there was also a sanctuary to the nymphs, who were associated with the worship of Bendis.

22 Thracians of course were not one people, but several tribes living over a large geographical area, who sometimes fought against each other, especially earlier in their history. Fifth-century kings, notably Teres and then Sitalkes, who succeeded to Teres’ throne over the Odrysian Thracians, fashioned larger kingdoms by extending their rule over their neighbours. Herodotos 4.92 and 5.3 discusses the Thracian tribes and their potential power. Cf. Thuk. 2.96. 3; Gomme, , A Historical Commentary on Thucydides II (Oxford, 1945–1981), pp. 242 ff.Google Scholar

23 Lysias 23. 2 f., 6 f.

24 IG 2.2 10 records the names and occupations of honorands. Foreigners from all walks of life must have been alienated by the Thirty.

25 He speaks of c. 300 on face A alone and 900 on face B (op. cit., p. 305).

26 ibid. note 26.

27 Hereward, BSA 47 (1952), 114 f., discussed by Krenz, loc. cit.

28 Diller, A., Race Mixture among the Greeks before Alexander (Urbana, 1937), p. 143.Google Scholar

29 Hereward says that ‘it seems almost like a woman's name’ (op. cit. 116).

30 ibid. p. 115.

31 IG 2.2 11057.

32 IG 2.2 11058.

33 IG 2.2 1256.

34 Hereward, BSA 47 (1952), 115; Pape Benseler s.v. Dexios.

35 Hereward, op. cit. 117 and n. 129.

36 It is still a matter of debate whether citizenship, isoteleia or other lesser honours were involved.

37 Herodotos 6. 39, 40; Kirchner, J., Prosopographia Attica (Berlin, 1901–1903), 10212.Google Scholar

38 Thuk. 4. 104. 4–105. 1.

39 Thuk. 7. 29. 1. Nikostratos, a general of the Peloponnesian War who died at Mantinea, also led Thracians and is known to have named his son Dieitrephes (Kirchner, PA 11011; Thuk. 4.129.1). W. R. Connor has therefore not only associated them, but has been tempted to suggest that their family had a special interest or competence in the area (The New Politicians of Fifth Century Athens (Princeton, 1971), p. 156).Google Scholar

40 Kirchner, PA 3755.

41 Thuk. 8. 64. 2. Andrewes, A., A Historical Commentary on Thucydides v (Oxford, 1981), pp. 156–7, explores possible identifications.Google Scholar

42 IG 12 118; Meiggs and Lewis 90. 6; Andrewes, loc. cit.

43 Cole, J. W., ‘Perdiccas and Athens’, Pheonix 28 (1974), 58 f., 63, shows clearly how precarious these supplies might be and how, because of them, Athens was sometimes involved in the political disputes between the states in the region, and occasionally tried to play one state off against another. Cf. Hammond and Griffith, A History of Macedonia. Vol. 2, 550–336 B.C., pp. 115 f.Google Scholar

44 Thuk. 7. 27, 29.

45 ATL 3. 59–63. Thracian cities appear on the tribute lists, and Athenian naval squadrons are mentioned at Eion and Tenedos.

46 So Cole, loc. cit., who follows Nesselhauf, Klio 30 (1933), 58.

47 Cole, loc. cit., F. Lepper, JHS 82 (1962), 35–8.

48 Through the agency of Nymphodoros of Abdera (Thuk. 2. 29. 1).

49 Acharnians 136–50.

50 Thuk. 3. 67 f.

51 Thuk. 2. 95. 1–101. 5.

52 There is no record of reprisals in Athens.

53 Thuk. 6. 7. 4.

54 IG 1.2 52. See Sokolowski, Lois Sacrées des citées Grecques, suppl. (1962), pp. 81–5.

55 Ferguson, Hesperia Suppl. 8 (1949), 131–62; Pečirka, J., The Formula for the Grant of Enktesis in Attic Inscriptions (Prague, 1966).Google Scholar

56 Cole, op. cit. 59.

57 See accounts of the Treasurers of the Other Gods for 42/8.

58 Republic 327 a.

59 SEG x. 64b from circa 430 B.C.; cf. SEG 17. 5; 19. 19; 21. 52, 23.

60 Ferguson, The Attic Orgeones, pp. 86 f.

61 ibid. 104 f.; FGH 368F 6.

62 Sokolowski, loc cit.; cf. Ferguson, , Hellenistic Athens (London, 1911), pp. 216–17.Google Scholar

63 IG 1.2 108.

64 IG 1.2 301 lines 114–20.

65 Xen. Hell. 2. 2. 5.

66 Andrewes, , Phoenix 25 (1971), 217 f. See Plut. Lysander 20. 7; Paus. 3. 18. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Polyainos 1. 45. 4; cf. Nepos, Lys. 2. 2. Andrewes, , Phoenix 25 (1971), 217 n. 20, expresses some surprise at Thasian loyalty in the light of Thuk. 8. 64. 3–5, but says that it was probably likely after Thrasyboulos’ recovery of Thasos, Xen. Hell. 1. 4. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

68 IG 2.2 17; Tod, GHI II, 117; Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 26; Diod. Sic. 14. 94. 2; Xen. Anabasis 7. 2. 31; cf. Diod. Sic. 18. 18.4.

69 Xen. Hell. 1. 1. 12, 32; 1. 4. 9; Diod. Sic. 13 and 14 passim; cf. Andrewes, JHS 73 (1953), 2f.

70 Xen. Hell. 4.8.25. His death at Aspendos was completely unrelated to his journey to Thrace.

71 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 11.

72 Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 25.

73 cf. Diod. Sic. 13. 97. 1; Ath. Pol. 34. 3; FGH 323A 25; Aristophanes, Frogs 190–1, 693–4; Justin 5. 6. 5 f.

74 Ath. Pol. 40. 2.