Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of maps
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- Prologue
- Part I ALLIANCE
- Part II HEGEMONY
- Chapter 6 The re-establishment of the boiōtarchia (378 BC)
- Chapter 7 The battle of Tegyra, 375 BC
- Chapter 8 Plutarch on Leuctra
- Chapter 9 Alliance and hegemony in fourth-century Greece: the case of the Theban Hegemony
- Chapter 10 Xenophon's speeches and the Theban Hegemony
- Chapter 11 The phantom synedrion of the Boeotian Confederacy, 378–335 BC
- Chapter 12 Boeotian Aulis and Greek naval bases
- Chapter 13 Epaminondas and the new inscription from Cnidus
- Part III DOMINATION
- Epilogue
- Glossary
- References
- Index
Chapter 11 - The phantom synedrion of the Boeotian Confederacy, 378–335 BC
from Part II - HEGEMONY
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of maps
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- Prologue
- Part I ALLIANCE
- Part II HEGEMONY
- Chapter 6 The re-establishment of the boiōtarchia (378 BC)
- Chapter 7 The battle of Tegyra, 375 BC
- Chapter 8 Plutarch on Leuctra
- Chapter 9 Alliance and hegemony in fourth-century Greece: the case of the Theban Hegemony
- Chapter 10 Xenophon's speeches and the Theban Hegemony
- Chapter 11 The phantom synedrion of the Boeotian Confederacy, 378–335 BC
- Chapter 12 Boeotian Aulis and Greek naval bases
- Chapter 13 Epaminondas and the new inscription from Cnidus
- Part III DOMINATION
- Epilogue
- Glossary
- References
- Index
Summary
The subject of the political ties linking the Boeotian Confederacy with its allies during the Theban Hegemony has lately been clouded. D. M. Lewis argued against the common view that the Boeotians never built some formal machinery or synod of allies to formulate and direct a common foreign policy. He relies on a passage from Xenophon (Hell. 7, 3, 11) and the Boeotian inscription IGvii 2418 to claim that the Boeotians did in fact create a synedrion with allied synedroi quite similar in nature to that established by the Athenians in their League of 378/7. Lewis admits, however, that the Boeotians did not include their allies on the mainland in this synedrion, but without explaining why they should have built a body that included their Peloponnesian allies while excluding the others. The weakness of this approach lies in its tendency to misunderstand the differences and goals of Boeotia's northern alliances from those with the southern states. Their two interests shared no common ground. Without an understanding of these realities and without adequate evidence any defense of a synedrion falls. Nor can one understand how the Byzantines became involved in this purported Boeotio-Peloponnesian synedrion. Further argument against it stems from the lack of evidence that Chios, Rhodes, Cnidus, or any other Aegean state showed anything but friendliness to Epaminondas and by extension to the Boeotians. A readier and better historically based explanation lies open: that the Boeotians dealt with all combinations.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008