Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:01:15.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Athens and Euboea, 349–8 B.C.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

H. W. Parke
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The accounts of the war in Euboea (349–8) given by Beloch and Kahrstedt are contradictory, their chief points of difference being:—(i) Was there only one expedition to Euboea at this time or two? (ii) When did the incident of the kidnapping of Molossus take place? (iii) Was the result of the war a victory for Athens or for Euboea, or was it indecisive? The ancient authorities upon whom we depend for the solution of these problems are divided into two kinds:—one fairly consecutive narrative (Plut. Phocion, XII–XIV), and many allusions or disconnected anecdotes to be found in the orators Demosthenes and Aeschines, and their scholia.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , 1929 , pp. 246 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1929

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 Griech. Gesch. III. i. 494 and ii. 278, following Schaefer, , Demosthenes, II 2. 78.Google Scholar

2 Forschungen, p. 54, followed by Pokorny, E., Studien zur griechischen Geschichte im sechsten und fünften Jahrzehnten des vierten Jahrhunderts v. Chr., Diss. Greifswald, 1913, p. 116.Google Scholar

3 The plural here must not be allowed to confuse the issue. Aeschines is including the expedition to Euboea of 357 B.C.

4 Cf. Aeschines in the same speech, §75, I.G. II2. 680, 1. 12 (274 B.C.), and Ferguson, , Hellenistic Athens, p. 251Google Scholar, note 2, and p. 377.

5 Kahrstedt also distinguishes this expedition from that sent to aid Plutarchus. His reason is that the first expedition was really sent to Eretria, so it could not be called an expedition ‘to Tamynae,’ since that only happened incidentally to be its goal: for the Athenians did not know they would be compelled to fight precisely there. This argument is needlessly subtle: Demosthenes only says not However, Kahrstedt in this particular happens to get the right result by whatever methods.

6 On the general subject cf. Kuenzi, A., Ἐπίδοσις, Diss. Bern. 1923.Google Scholar

7 Cf. Radüge, Erich, Zur Zeitbestimmung des euboïschen und olynthischen Kriegs, Diss. Giessen, 1908Google Scholar, who cites Dem. XVIII. 99 and I.G. II2. ii. 1, 1612, 1. 301 (356–5 B.C.).

8 The above account is not widely divergent from that in the Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. VI. p. 231: but Mr. Pickard-Cambridge has not fully represented the character and importance of the second expedition, as the last sent out πανδημεῖ before Chaeronea.

9 Beloch had denied this, loc. cit. supra.

10 Cf. ὑποστρατηγέω (= to hold a subordinate command).

11 The inscription is known from four small fragments (one of which is only extant in copies). It is dated in the prytanis of Pandionis: the thesmothetae of 349–8 (ἐπὶ Καλλιμάχου) and the month Thargelion are mentioned in the text. Since the prytanis of Pandionis actually fell in Thargelion this year (cf. Kirchner ad loc.), the date May 348 seems almost certain. What exactly the three generals had to do with Orontos is not quite clear. Chares had been in Chalcidice, but had left there: Charidemus was the general on the Hellespont (Philochorus, Frag. 132). Both went to help Olynthus in the summer of 348. Hence it is likely that this inscription with its reference to στρατιῶται is concerned with the raising of mercenaries for the coming campaign.

12 Contemporary estimates of ransoms vary greatly: e.g. Dem. XIX. 169 quotes 3–5 minas a man; Aesch. II. 100, at least a talent a man, when they are speaking of the same prisoners !

13 It seems impossible to determine whether these were obtained by express agreement with Phalaecus, the contemporary τύραννος of Phocis, or whether they were merely allowed to earn their living in the winter months by finding casual employment abroad. The scholiast seems to have confused them with the fugitive Phocian mercenaries of 346.

14 It is difficult to unravel the exact details of Plutarch's account of this battle. Perhaps he did not quite understand his authorities. He distinguishes the φάλαγξ from the ἐπίλεκτοι. As the ἐπίλεκτοι will have been the only Athenian infantry on the field, perhaps these were the brigade of loyal Eretrians.

15 Aesch. I. 113, with schol., which can only belong to this period.

16 Dem. IX. 57: there is no evidence that the reconciliation with Plutarchus ever had involved his return to power.