Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:20:56.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Years 375 to 371 Bc: A Case Study in the Reliability of Diodorus Siculus and Xenophon

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

V. J. Gray
V. J. Gray
Affiliation:
Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Neither the chronology nor the interpretation of the history of the years 375 to 371 BC is yet settled. The date of the peace that followed the Athenian naval victory over Sparta at Alyzeia in Scirophorion 375 is put variously in the second half of 375 or 374 or even in spring 374. The status of the Boeotian cities at the time of the peace as well as the role of the King and the participation of Thebes are controversial, and this affects the interpretation of the peace itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , December 1980 , pp. 306 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1980

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 Compare the recent general accounts of Bengtson, H., Griechische Geschichte, (Munich, 1969), p. 276Google Scholar and Sealey, R., A History of the Greek City States 700–338 BC (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 414–19, who outlines the controversies of the period and seems to conclude that a solution depends the relative reliability of the two main sources for the period: Xenophon, Hellenica, 6.1–3 and Diodorus Siculus 15.38–5 All unmarked references in the text are to the Hellenica.Google Scholar

2 For a survey on the various views of the peace up to 1949 see Roos, A., ’The Peace of Sparta of 374 BC’, Mnemosyne, N.S. ii (1949), 266Google Scholar n. 1. More recent historians favour a date of 375/4: Cawkwell, G. L., ’Notes on the Peace of 375 BC’, Hist. 12 (1963), 84–95;Google ScholarRyder, T. T., Koine Eirene (Oxford, 1965), pp. 58–63, 124–6; Bengtson and Sealey (above, n. 1). For the date of Alyzeia, Polyaenus 3, 10.Google Scholar

3 Grote, G., History of Greece IX (London, 1884), pp. 348–91,Google Scholar follows Xenophon in holding that the Boeotian cities were in Theban hands before the peace; Hammond, N. G. L., History of Greece (Oxford, 1959), pp. 490–1Google Scholar excepts Orchomenus from this generalization; Beloch, K. J., Griechische Geschichte III. 1 (Berlin, 1922), pp. 154–60Google Scholar and Cary, M. in CAH VI (Cambridge, 1923), p. 70,Google Scholar except Plataea, Thespiae, Orchomenus; Accame, S., La Lega Ateniese (Rome, 1941), pp. 86–106 and esp. 146, excepts Tanagra as well. The role of Persia and Thebes is less controversial; see Roos and Ryder (n. 2).Google Scholar

4 On the date of Mnasippusü expedition some favour spring 373: Grote, Cary, and Hammond (above, n. 3) and Marshall, J., The Second Athenian Confederacy (Cambridge, 1905), pp. 64–71; but others favour autumn 373: Beloch and Accame (above, n. 3) and Cawkwell (above, n. 2). Timotheusü expedition is fixed at Mounichion 373 by Ps.-Dem. 49.6.Google Scholar

5 Grote and Cary have a date of summer 373 for Iphicratesü expedition (above, n. 3) but Marshall, Beloch, Accame, Hammond, and Cawkwell (above, nn. 2–4) have a date of early 372.

6 Cawkwell (above, n. 2).

7 For a list of such framing sentences see M. McLaren, ’On the Composition of Xenophonüs Hellenica’, AJP 55 (1934), 131 n. 42.

8 It is clear that the formula can indicate prior action; see Hell. 3.1.1 where it introduces the expedition of Cyrus which began in early 401 after the account of the stasis at Athens which ended later that year (Ath. Pol. 40.4).

9 Isocrates 15.109–10.

10 D.S. 15.38. It is generally agreed that Diodorus used Ephorus for Books 11–16: see Volquardsen, C. A., Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen der griecben and sikilischen Geschichte bei Diodor XI-XVI (1868).Google Scholar For the chronology of Ephorus and the difficulties Diodorus had in using him, cf. Barber, G. L., The Historian Ephorus (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 59–69, 171–2.Google Scholar

11 Beloch, Gr.G. 111.2, pp. 236–8.

12 Accame (above, n. 3), pp. 91–8.

13 Ryder (above, n. 2), p. 125 has no rouble in accepting these omissions.

14 For a reasonable estimate of Xenophonüs attitude to Sparta see Anderson, J. K., Xenophon (London, 1974), pp. 165–71Google Scholar

15 Xenophon is silent on Thebesü role in the peace and Diodorus says that she remained out of it, but Isocratesü Plataicus indicates that both Plataea and Thebes were party to a Common Peace between 387/6 and 373/2. Thebes was a member of the Athenian Confederacy in 373 which would have been impossible if she had not sworn to the peace of 375. See the arguments of Roos, (above, n. 2) which should be accepted. Diodorus is commonly assumed to be transferring the exclusion of Thebes from the peace of 371 to 375 but cf. S. Lauffer, ’Die Diodor Dublette D.S. XV.38–50 über die Friedensschliisse zu Sparta 374 and 371 v. Chrü, Hist. 8 (1959), 315–48. See also Ryder (above, n. 2).

16 Plataicus 9.

17 Plataicus 11–16.

18 D.S. 15.38.4: Just because Diodorus is wrong on the exclusion of Thebes from the peace of 375 it does not necessarily follow that he is also wrong on the status of the Boeotian cities at that time. See above, n. 15. He does refer to subsequent Theban attacks on Plataea, Thespiae, and Orchomenus but these could be part of the recovery of the cities after the peace had delivered them from Thebes (15.46.4, 57). This would mean he actually contradicts himself on the matter of Thebesü participation.

19 The idea that the peace was designed to remove Spartan garrisons is held by Accame (above, n. 3), p. 146.

20 Beloch, Gr.G. 111.2, pp. 236–8.

21 Hell. 6.1.14; 6.4.32 and Westlake, H. D., History of Thessaly in the Fourth Century (London, 1935), pp. 107–8.Google Scholar

22 Westlake, op. cit., pp. 104–11.

23 Accame (above, n. 3), pp. 91–8.

24 IG II.2, 43, line 111 shows an erased space which is commonly assumed to have once held the name of Jason. Cf. A. G. Woodhead, ’IG II.2, 43 and Jason of Pherae’, AJA, 61 (1957), 367–73 but then cf. Cawkwell (above, n. 2), p. 91 n. 60.

25 Ps.-Dem. 49.10, and IG.11.2.43, line 109.

26 Westlake (above, n. 21), pp. 72–3, 116–19.

27 Westlake, pp. 116–19.

28 Ps.-Dem. 49.10 and Hell. 6.2.11.

29 D.S. 15.36.5.

30 See Accame (n. 3), pp. 91–103 for this view.

31 Woodhead (above, n. 24) but cf. Cawkwell (above, n. 24).

32 D.S. 15.36.5. He mentions Cephallenia, Acarnania, and Alcetas as joining but strangely omits Corcyra.

33 Ps.-Dem. 49.10. Polyaenus 3.9.40 is too vague to make Iphicrates responsible for an alliance with Jason.

34 Ps.-Dem. 49.10 and Woodhead (above, n. 24), p. 373.

35 Woodhead (above, n. 24), pp. 371–2.

36 Accame (above, n. 3), p. 101 n. 3 rejects a date of 373 BC.

37 Marshall (above, n. 4), pp. 57–8.

38 Accame (above, n. 3), pp. 99–100.

39 Sealey (above, n. 1), p. 419.

40 Isocrates 15.109–10; Philochorus ap. Didymus 7.62.

41 Scholiast to Aristophanes Peace 1017–20 and see Accame (above, n. 3), pp. 248–51.

42 D.S. 15.38 and Philochorus (above, n. 40).

43 Again, Roos (above, n. 2).

44 These mercenaries are indeed recruited and are found under the command of Iphicrates at D.S. 15.41.3.

45 Hall, H. R., CAH VI (Cambridge, 1923), p. 149Google Scholar and Parke, H. W., Greek Mercenary Soldiers (Oxford, 1933), pp. 105–6Google Scholar date the invasion to 374 but Beloch, Gr.G. 111.1, pp. 211–12 and Bengtson, H., The Greeks and the Persians (London, 1969), p. 348 date it to 373. Diodorus is clear the invasion began at the beginning of the summer i.e. spring, that some time passed in the fight for the fort on the Mendesian mouth of the Nile, and that it ended when the Etesian winds were blowing and the Nile was flooding, a phenomenon that occurred also early in the summer according to Strabo 17.1.7. If a date of 374 were accepted for the beginning of the invasion there would be no possibility at all of a peace date of late 374, since the invasion would precede the peace and make nonsense of the Kingüs motivation for calling for peace. The invasion must follow the peace. For Diodorusü confusion over the chronology of eastern affairs see 15.29.Google Scholar

46 See below, pp. 316 ff.

47 D.S. 15.41.2.

48 Cawkwell (above, n. 2), p. 90.

49 Neither of the historians gives much space to Alyzeia. Xenophon is also sketchy on the battle of Naxos, concealing its importance in winning allies for the Second Athenian Confederacy and treating only its immediate military significance as a way of relieving the Spartan blockade of Athens (5.4.61). But Diodorus attaches a great deal more importance to Naxos (15.34.3–35).

50 D.S. 15.45–7.

51 D.S. 15.47.7 and Hell. 6.2.31.

52 See Gomme, A. W., Historical Commentary on Thucydides, I (Oxford, 1970), p. 20, and 1, 103.4 n.Google Scholar

53 Ps.-Dem. 49.9 and Hell. 6.2.13.

54 Ps.-Dem. 49.22.

55 Ps.-Dem. 49.10.

56 See Ps.-Dem. 49.10 for their presence and support.

57 Ps.-Dem. 49.9 for the role of Callistratus.

58 Hell. 2.1.1 indicates that this sort of employment was available only in the summer, that is until the onset of winter.

59 For the date of the assumption of the nauarchy and the length of its term see Beloch, Gr.G. II.2, pp. 269–89 and Michell, H., Sparta (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 277–80.Google Scholar

60 Beloch (above) dates the nauarchy of Aristocrates to this year.

61 D.S. 15.45–6. A contemporaneous reply was made by Athens to Zacynthus and Corcyra, so that the appeals must also have been contemporaneous.

62 D.S. 15.45.1–2.

63 D.S. 15.45.4; 46.2.

64 Hell. 5.4.66 and 6.2.1 confirm that money was a major worry to the Athenians before this peace.

65 See Pausanias 9.1.3–8 who puts the attack on Plataea in early 373/2 but implies that the whole affair began a little earlier in 374/3.

66 Plataicus 1,5,17,43.

67 A. Momigliano, ’La Pace del 375 a.C. e il Plataico di Isocrate’, Ath. N.S. xiv (1936), 3–35, esp. 29.

68 See Best, J. G. P., Thracian Peltasts and their Influence on Greek Warfare (Groningen, 1969),Google ScholarParke, H. W., Greek Mercenary Soldiers (Oxford, 1933)Google Scholar as well as Anderson, J. K., Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon (California, 1970), although none mention these peltasts specifically.Google Scholar

69 Here I follow G. L. Barber (above, n. 10) esp. Chs. I, II, and Appendix II. Cf. on Ephorusü organization of his history R. Drews, ’Diodorus and his Sources’, AJP 83 (1962), 382–92, but I am not convinced for the period 275–371 BC that Ephorus used an annalistic method. On the parts of the narrative that Diodorus may be adding himself see Drews and R. K. Sinclair, ’Diodorus Siculus and Fighting in Relays’, CQ N.S. 16 (1966), 249–55. See E. Schwarz on Diodoru in R.E.

70 D.S. 15.49–50.

71 Schwarz (above, n. 69).

72 Cawkwell (above, n. 2) has made the most recent objections.

73 Isocrates 15.109 says Timotheus had only 13 talents for his previous expedition to Corcyra in 375.

74 For fourth-century evidence that recruitment of good crews depended on the enthusiasm of the trierarchs as much as on rates of pay see Dem. On the Trierarchic Crown 6 and Against Polycles 6–7, where the trierarch could easily have recruited an incompetent crew from those offered him on the demarchüs register but chose rather to search elsewhere for crews of better quality. An uncooperative trierarch could easily produce inefficient crews which a commander like Timotheus might reject.

75 Compare Hell. 5.1.30–6; 6.5.1–3; 7.1.27, and esp. 7.1.33–40.

76 D.S. 15.45.3.

77 See Barber (above, n. 10), pp. 88–10 and esp. 100–1.

78 D.S. 15.46.6.

79 D.S. 15.47.6.

80 D.S. 15.47.6.

81 Ps.-Dem. 49.25 and Hell. 6.2.39.

82 IG 11.2.43, lines 112 ff. The only Thracian cities mentioned are Selymbria and Neapolis.

83 Accame (above, n. 3), pp. 100–3.

84 D.S. 15.47.4.

85 Barber (above, n. 10), pp. 141–4.

86 Bruce, I. A. F., Historical Commentary on the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia (Cambridge, 1967), Appendix I.Google Scholar

87 Barber (above, n. 10), p. 143.

88 D.S. 15.47.1, cf. Hell. 6.2.4; D.S. 15.47.1, cf. Hell. 6.2.5; D.S. 15.47.4, cf. Hell. 6.2.10; D.S. 15.47.7, cf. Hell. 6.2.35.

89 This produces a figure of about 2 minae per man which is well within the slave price range given in Slavery in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, 1960), ed. M. I. Finley, p. 5. (= A.H.M. Jones, ’Slavery in the Ancient World’, EHR 2nd s. 9 (1956), p. 189.)Google Scholar

90 D.S. 15.47.2–4 produces the number 130. At about a half-drachma per man per day or a little less 60 talents would cover a monthüs pay for this fleet. Jones, A. H. M., Athenian Democracy (Oxford, 1967), p. 32 gives a reasonable estimate of fourth-century rates of pay for seamen.Google Scholar

91 See Gomme, A. W., Andrewes, A., Dover, K. J., Historical Commentary on Thucydides, IV (Oxford, 1970), 6.31.3 nn.Google Scholar

92 Ps.-Dem. 49.14,21.

93 See Barber (above, n. 10), pp. 131–3, who believes that the history of Callisthenes began in the 370s and cf. F. Jacoby, R.E. on Callisthenes.

94 Barber op. cit., pp. 1–3.

95 Ps.-Plut. Lives of the Ten Orators, Isocrates, 9.

96 Barber, pp. 64–5, 131.

97 Barber, pp. 11–13.

98 Hell. 6.4.37 was written after the death of Alexander of Pherae in 358/7, thus dating the writing of this book, in which the events of 375–371 occur, to after that time. Publication of this part of the Hellenica is normally dated to the 350s.

99 See Barber, pp. 179–81.

100 J. K. Anderson (above, n. 14), pp. 165–71.

101 Delebecque, E., Essai sur la vie de Xenophon (Paris, 1957), p. 301.Google Scholar