of the koinon in the decade after the Spartan victory.
54. Xen. Hell. 5.4.1–9. Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.25–27; Plut. Pel. 7–13 with varying details. Gehrke 1985: 177–80.
55. Diod. Sic. 15.28.1; Plut. Pel. 13.1. Sordi 1973 on the seizure of power by Thebans in this moment of political reconstitution.
56. Xen. Hell. 5.4.10–13; Diod. Sic. 15.25. Sources differ on the nature of Athenian support. Many have read Xenophon’s account as evidence only for private Athenian support (noting especially the dēmos’s decision to execute the two generals who collaborated with the Theban rebels, Hell. 5.4.19, and the description of the supporters as “some Athenians from the frontiers” at Hell. 5.4.10, 12), but there is nothing in Xenophon that leads us ineluctably to that conclusion. Indeed several sources speak against it: Xen. Hell. 5.4.14; Diod. Sic. 15.25.4, 26.1–2; Din. 1.39; Isocr. 14.29. See Cawkwell 1973: 56–58; Cargill 1981: 56; Kallet-Marx 1985: 140–47; Stylianou 1998: 230–31; V. Parker 2007: 15–16, 24–25, 27–28. The evidence for other Boiotian poleis sending aid to expel the Spartan garrison in the winter of 379/8 is generally overlooked, but Diod. Sic. 15.26.3 is explicit. It is immediately plausible: we have every reason, from the accounts of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia as well as Xenophon, to expect stasis in the Boiotian poleis in this period. On the high value of Diodoros’s whole account of the Theban hegemony, based on Ephoros, see Momigliano 1935; Sordi 2005.
57. Xen. Hell. 5.4.14–15.
58. Diod. Sic. 15.28.5.
59. Xen. Hell. 5.4.20–33 for the unsuccessful attempt and the sham trial of Sphodrias in absentia in Sparta that eventually acquitted him. Whether or not Sphodrias was bribed by the Thebans to make the attack is immaterial; for recent discussion of this point see Hodkinson 2007.
60. RO 22 ll. 24–25.
61. Xenophon, infamously, makes no mention. Diod. Sic. 15.28 places it in 377/6, after the liberation of Thebes from Sparta but before Sphodrias’s raid on Peiraieus (Diod. Sic. 15.29.5–8). The liberation of the Kadmeia from its Spartan garrison occurred in winter 379/8, so Diodoros’s absolute date must be wrong, but it is possible that his relative chronology is correct, viz. that the confederacy was founded before the seizure of Peiraieus (Cawkwell 1973; Cargill 1981: 57–60; Hornblower 2002: 233), which would help to understand the motives behind Sphodrias’s raid. On the other hand, the raid on Peiraieus can be seen as precisely the sort of proof the Athenians needed to gain alliances in support of an Athenian role as the new enforcers of the King’s Peace, taking over where the Spartans had so patently failed (Rice 1975; Badian 1995: 89–90 n. 34; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 100).
62. RO 20 ll. 72–77. The full integration of Thebes into the allied synedrion may have been recorded in IG II2 40, but the text is so fragmentary that certain interpretation is impossible. See Cargill 1981: 52–56, 60.
63. Xen. Hell. 5.4.35–41, 46–56; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.34.1–3. The Thebans undertook a mission to Thessaly to purchase grain; the ships were captured by the Spartan garrison commander at Histiaia (Oreos) on Euboia, which shortly after revolted from Sparta and may have made an alliance with the Thebans that recognized their hagemonia in the war, recorded on a newly discovered inscription: Aravantinos and Papazarkadas 2012.
64. Xen. Hell. 5.4.63.
65. Orchomenos: Diod. Sic. 15.37.1–2 (who places the event, probably wrongly, in 376/5; cf. Beloch 1912–27: III.1.155); Plut. Pel. 16.2–3. Tegyra: Plut. Pel. 16–17.10, Ages. 27.3; Diod. Sic. 15.81.2.
66. Possible reintegration: Isocr. 14.9. Destruction of Thespiai: Xen. Hell. 6.3.1, 5; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6, 51.3; Isocr. 6.27; Dem. 16.4, 25, 28.
67. Xen. Hell. 6.3.1, 5; Plut. Pel. 25.7; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6; Paus. 9.1.8; Isocr. 14 passim. For discussion see Amit 1973: 114–18; Tuplin 1986. At the same time the Thebans apparently attacked Orchomenos, though the results were indecisive (Xen. Hell. 6.4.10). See below, pp. 366–67, for further discussion of the dynamics of these attacks.
68. Xen. Hell. 6.3.1–2.
69. Plut. Ages. 27.3–28.2.
70. Xen. Hell. 6.3.11.
71. Plut. Ages. 27.3–28.4; Paus. 9.13.2. Cf. Nep. Epam. 6.4. For discussion of the ambiguity of the concept of autonomia and its impact on this peace conference, see Rhodes 1999.
72. Xen. Hell. 6.3.18–4.3; cf. Plut. Ages. 28.2–3.
73. Xen. Hell. 6.4.14–15; Diod. Sic. 15.51–56; Plut. Pel. 20–23, Ages. 28.5–6; cf. Arist. Pol. 1269a34–1271b19 for analysis of Spartan weakness in the wake of this defeat.
74. Xen. Hell. 6.4.19 and Buckler 2000a: 328.
75. Polyb. 2.39.9 and Str. 8.7.1 report that the Achaians were asked to arbitrate in the dispute between Thebes and Sparta. For debate about the historicity of the report see von Stern 1884: 154–55; Grote 1906: VIII.189; Cary 1925; F. W. Walbank 1957–79: I.226–27; and Buckler 1978. I doubt the skepticism is justified.
76. Xen. Hell. 6.5.1–2; Ryder 1965: 70–71; Jehne 1994: 74–79.
77. Xen. Hell. 6.4.10.
78. Diod. Sic. 15.57.1.
79. Diod. Sic. 15.57.1; cf. Xen. Hell. 6.5.23 for Phokian and Lokrian support in 369.
80. Buckler 1980b provides a detailed account of these years.
81. Xen. Hell. 6.5.6. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1 attributes the political innovation to Lykomedes of Tegea, who persuaded the Arkadians “to arrange themselves in a single synteleia and have a common council made up of ten thousand men, with the authority to decide on matters of war and peace.” The Arkadian origin of this koinon speaks against the idea that the Thebans were actively promoting federalism in this period: Beck 2000: 340–43 contra Beister 1989. For further discussion of the Arkadian regional state organized in 370 see Larsen 1968: 180–95; Beck 1997: 67–83; Nielsen 2002: 474–99.
82. The date of the foundation of Megalopolis has been contested; Diod. Sic. 15.72.4 places it after the Tearless Battle in 368, but Paus. 8.27.8 puts it in 371/0, and the Parian Marble (IG XII.5.444 l. 73) no earlier than 370. Roy 1971: 572 argues that the Thebans were uninvolved, and that is surely impossible given that it must have taken years for the city to get off the ground, but he may be right that we should not attribute to them the primary impetus for the project. See Hornblower 1990; Moggi 1976: 293–325.
83. Diod. Sic. 15.62.3; cf. Dem. 16.12. Athenian refusal to help the Arkadians is explained by their alignment with the Spartans implicit in the post-Leuktra peace conference: Buckler 1980b: 68–69 and 2000a: 328. I agree with Beck 2000 that the move in Arkadia toward federal institutions after Leuktra is not to be explained by some ideological penchant of the Thebans for federalism.
84. Xen. Hell. 6.5.22–24; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.62.4; Paus. 9.14.2.
85. Xen. Hell. 6.5.28; Diod. Sic. 15.65.6.
86. Xen. Hell. 6.5.30–32. This may have been the occasion for the Theban grant of proxeny to Timeas son of Cheirikrates, a Lakonian, recorded on a stele with a relief depicting inter alia the prow of a warship (T6 with commentary).
87. Diod. Sic. 15.66; Paus. 9.14.5.
88. Very little is known about this state, but it is attested epigraphically: IG V.1.1425 and FDelph III.4.5–6. See Luraghi 2009.
89. Xen. Hell. 6.5.50.
90. The Spartan-Athenian alliance: Xen. Hell. 6.5.33–49, 7.1–14; Diod. Sic. 15.67.1. Action in the Corinthia: Xen. Hell. 6.5.49–52 for the end of the first Theban invasion; 7.1.15–19 for the beginning of the second.
91. Arkadian independence under leadership of Lykomedes of Mantineia: Xen. Hell. 7.1.22–26; Diod. Sic. 15.67.2.
92. Xen. Hell. 6.4.35; Diod. Sic. 15.67.3–4; Plut. Pel. 26.1.
93. Plut. Pel. 26.4–8; Diod. Sic. 15.67.4.
94. Plut. Pel. 27.1–2; Diod. Sic. 15.71.1.
95. Plut. Pel. 27.3–5; not reported by Diodoros.