Diod. Sic. 15.71.3, 75.2; Xen. Hell. 7.1.28.
98. Boiotian proxeny decree for a Perrhaibian: IG VII.2858.
99. Cf. Xen. Hell. 7.1.15–18; Diod. Sic. 15.68.2.
100. Xen. Hell. 7.1.42; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.75.2.
101. Xen. Hell. 7.1.43; Gehrke 1985: 14. Whether the harmosts should be seen as a Spartan-inspired strategy for subordination or an attempt to enforce some stability in the political settlement (so Buckler 1980b: 192–93) is unclear. In 367/6 the Thebans also had a harmost and garrison at Sikyon (Xen. Hell. 7.2.11, 7.3.4). The practice should probably be associated with the broader plan of gaining (by force if necessary) the adherence of the entire northern Peloponnese.
102. Diod. Sic. 15.75.2. Buckler 1980b: 188 for a slightly different chronology.
103. Aitolian friendship with Boiotia: Diod. Sic. 15.57.1. Aitolian aspirations for Naupaktos: Xen. Hell. 4.6.14 and above, n. 22. Cf. Buckler 1980b: 189–90.
104. So Freitag 2009: 24.
105. Freitag 2009: 24 makes the attractive suggestion that the Achaians had garrisoned these places only in anticipation of the Boiotian attack, and that the language of liberation is pure Theban propaganda.
106. Gehrke 1985: 14–15.
107. Σ B ad Il. 2.494 reports that “Kalydon was given to the Aitolians, who were in a dispute with the Aiolians and called it their own on the grounds of the catalogue of the Aitolians,” viz. the Aitolian entry in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1921 suggested that the scholiast was a fourth-century historian whose report refers to the events of 367/6; cf. Jacoby, comm. to FGrHist 70 F 122. Kalydon was certainly Aitolian in the latter half of the fourth century: Ps.-Skylax 35 in GGM I.37. Buckler 1980b: 188–91; Bommeljé 1988: 298, 302–3, 310; Merker 1989: 305–6.
108. Sordi 1953b, 1969: 343–49. Rzepka 2002: 230–31 takes it as a reference to the Aitolian assembly.
109. See Polyb. 4.3.1 with Grainger 1999: 34–35; de Souza 1999: 70–76; Scholten 2000: 9–12.
110. Schweigert 1939: 11; Klaffenbach 1939b: 191–92; Tod II.111.
111. Friendship: Diod. Sic. 15.57.1. Sordi 1953b, 1969: 343–49; Grainger 1999: 35 (though he is wrong to conclude that there was no Aitolian koinon at all in the first half of the fourth century); Beck 2000: 338–44.
112. Recent excavations conducted jointly by the Greek Archaeological Service and the Danish Institute at Athens have revealed the gates and towers, and clarified the overall plan of the town: Archaeological Reports 2001/2: 44–45; 2002/3: 41; 2003/4: 36; 2004/5: 42; 2005/6: 53; Dietz, Kolonas, Moschos, et al. 2007; Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2009.
113. Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, et al. 1987: 112; Ober 1992: 165; Dietz, Kolonas, Moschos, et al. 1998: 255–57. Cf. Dietz, Kolonas, Houby-Nielsen, et al. 2000.
114. The remains were first identified with Trichoneion by Leake 1835: 55. Cf. Woodhouse 1897: 232–35; Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, et al. 1987: 83, 110–11; Antonetti 1990: 238–40.
115. Molykreion: Woodhouse 1897: 328; Lerat 1952: I.84–86, 188–89; Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, et al. 1987: 112; Freitag 2000: 58–67.
116. Themelis 1979, 1999; Bakhuizen 1992.
117. Funke 1991: 330.
118. Xen. Hell. 7.4.1; Diod. Sic. 15.76.1; Isocr. 5.53; Σ Aeschin. 3.85. Cf. Buckler 1980b: 194–95, 250–51.
119. Xen. Hell. 7.4.2–4; Plut. Mor. 193c–d; Nep. Epam. 6.1–3.
120. So Buckler 1980b: 160–64 (most of which is overly speculative), 257–59, following Hammond 1967: 503, 665.
121. It is narrated only by Diod. Sic. 15.78.4–79.2 in the context of the year 364, an account that does not allow for the logical lapse of time between initial vote and readiness of the fleet for expeditions.
122. Xen. Hell. 7.4.6–11. Only Diod. Sic. 15.76.3 mentions Athenian involvement, and the issue has been a source of major controversy, which is tangential to my main purpose. Cawkwell 1961 (followed by Hornblower 2002: 230) and Jehne 1994: 86–88 argue that it was a common peace involving both Persia and Athens; contra Ryder 1965: 83, 137–39.
123. Diod. Sic. 15.79.3–6 for the main narrative; cf. Dem. 20.109; Paus. 9.15.3 (who absolves Epameinondas of any responsibility). Buckler 1980b: 182–84 suggests that the Orchomenian cavalry may have been motivated to join the conspiracy out of opposition to the move toward ever more democratic government in Thebes and in those cities outside Boiotia where the Thebans had some sway.
124. Diod. Sic. 15.80; Plut. Pel. 31–35; Nep. Pel. 5. For detailed discussion of the battle see Buckler 1980b: 175–82.
125. Aeschin. 2.105.
126. Kraay 1976: 113.
127. Diod. Sic. 15.79.1.
128. Byzantine proxenos at Boiotia: T9. Separation from Athenian alliance by 362: Dem. 1.6. The relationship in the 350s is deduced from RO 57 ll. 9–13, a record of contributions to the Boiotians for the Third Sacred War in the period 354–352, in which the Byzantine contributions are made by the Byzantine synedroi; the significance of this word has been a matter of some debate, hinging on the question of how the Boiotians organized their allies. See below n. 146. Dem. 9.34 attests an alliance of Byzantion and Thebes.
129. Fossey 1994: 39 suggests that SEG 28.465 may provide evidence for Theban relations with Rhodes in this period, but the document (reused in antiquity) is so fragmentary that it offers no certainty, and the name “Rhodes” itself is restored. Cf. Buckler 1998: 197–98.
130. Diod. Sic. 15.81.6; Nep. Timoth. 1.3.
131. RO 39. In this connection it is interesting to note the hints of a koinonlike structure uniting the four poleis of Keos at this time: Tod 141; SEG 14.530 (Staatsverträge 232); IG XII.5.609 with Brun 1989. Two Athenian decrees reflect a desire to break up this structure: IG II2 404 (SEG 39.73) and 1128 (Tod 162; RO 40). See also Reger and Risser 1991, focused primarily on the Hellenistic koinon of the Keans.
132. Triphylian state: Nielsen 1997.
133. Xen. Hell. 7.4.38–40. Other allies from central Greece and the Peloponnese joined later: Xen. Hell. 7.5.4; Diod. Sic. 15.84.4.
134. Xen. Hell. 7.5.26–27.
135. Death of Epameinondas: Xen. Hell. 7.5.24–25; Diod. Sic. 15.87.5–6. Mantineia was the terminus for at least five different ancient historical accounts of the period: Diod. Sic. 15.89.3, 95.4. For its importance as both end and beginning in Xenophon see Dillery 1995: 17–40.
136. RO 41 = IG II2 112; Diod. Sic. 15.89.1–2; Plut. Ages. 35.3–4; Polyb. 4.33.8–9. Cf. Xen. Hell. 7.5.18.
137. Commitment to Megalopolis: Diod. Sic. 15.94.1–3.
138. Euboian cities in Second Athenian Confederacy: RO 22 ll. 80–84. Euboians in Theban alliance after Leuktra: Xen. Hell. 6.5.23.
139. Diod. Sic. 16.7.2; Aeschin. 3.85; Dem. 8.74–75; 21.174. The resulting alliance between Athens and Karystos (RO 48) alludes (lines 15–17) to the dispatch of embassies from Karystos to the other Euboian cities (viz. Eretria, Chalkis, and Histiaia) presumably in an attempt to persuade them too to make a formal alliance with Athens. There is a problem with the chronology of this conflict. Detailed discussion can be found in Cawkwell 1962 and the commentary to RO 48, which latter I follow. Whether the Euboian War occurred in 358/7 or 357/6 matters little for my purposes, but the Julian year 357 is more likely.
140. Diod. Sic. 16.23.2–3, 29.2–3. We rely almost exclusively, by necessity, on Diodoros’s account of the Third Sacred War, for which reason there has been much discussion of his sources. (See Markle 1994.) The date of the initial indictment of the Spartans has been debated: 371, directly after Leuktra (Harris 1995: 80; Lefèvre 2002: 455 n. 55), or 366 or 361 (Sordi 1957: 49–52) or 356 (Buckler 1985: 242–43 and 1989: 15). Diodoros, however, makes it clear that the charge was renewed in