Notes

Introduction. From One War to the Next

1. Winston S. Churchill, Marlborough: His Life and Times (London: Harrap, 1947), II 381.

2. A part of the Green Pamphlet was eventually published as an appendix to the 1988 reprint of Julian Stafford Corbett, Some Principles of Maritime Strategy (London: Longmans Green, 1911), where he had elaborated on the idea of grand strategy without using the term: see Julian Stafford Corbett, Some Principles of Grand Strategy, ed. Eric J. Grove (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1988), 305–25. For the history of the term, see Lukas Milevski, The Evolution of Modern Grand Strategic Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).

3. See J. F. C. Fuller, The Reformation of War (London: Hutchinson, 1923), 211–28 (esp. 218–21). For a recent discussion of the pertinent concept’s application to ancient history, see Kimberly Kagan, “Redefining Roman Grand Strategy,” Journal of Military History 70:2 (April 2006): 333–62 (esp. 348–50).

4. See Edward N. Luttwak, The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire: From the First Century A.D. to the Third (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), and The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), as well as A. Wess Mitchell, The Grand Strategy of the Hapsburg Empire (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018).

Part I. Yokefellows

Epigraph: Pl. Leg. 3.692e–693a.

1. For the details, see Rahe, PC, Epilogue. On the spoils, see Margaret C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 29–38.

2. Pausanias’ pledge to the Plataeans: Thuc. 2.71.2–4.

3. Oath of Hellenic League vs. Medizers: Hdt. 7.132.2, Diod. 11.3.1–5, as interpreted in A Commentary on Herodotus, ed. Walter Wyberg How and Joseph Wells (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912), II 177–78. On the so-called Oath of Plataea, the authenticity of which is disputed, see Rahe, PC, Chapter 8.

4. Earth and water: Hdt. 7.132.1. Presence of Thebans at Thermopylae: 7.202, 205.2–3, 233. Theban participants drawn from minority hostile to the Mede: Diod. 11.4.7. Oath of the Amphictyonic League: Aeschin. 2.115 with François Lefèvre, L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: Histoire et institutions (Athens: École française d’Athènes, 1998), passim (esp. 147–51). Note also Aeschin. 3.108–12.

5. Actual handling of Thebes in 479: Hdt. 9.86–88.

6. Juxtaposition of Spartan and Persian meal: Hdt. 9.82.

7. Marriage of Leonidas and Gorgo: Hdt. 7.239.4. Pleistarchus son of Leonidas too young to command at Plataea: 9.10.2.

8. Charismatic Heraclid kingship: Rahe, SR, Chapters 2–3. Leotychidas at Mycale: Rahe, PC, Chapter 8.

9. For further details and a full citation of the primary sources and the secondary literature, see Rahe, SR, Chapter 1 and Appendix 1.

10. Aristotle on Laconian helots: Pol. 1269a36–39. Note Critias ap Lib. Or. 25.63.

11. Helot revolt at time of Marathon: Rahe, PC, Chapter 4. Two thousand helots liberated and made to disappear: Thuc. 4.80.3–4 with Andrewes, HCT, V 366. Various dates suggested: Charles D. Hamilton, “Social Tensions in Classical Sparta,” Ktema 12 (1987): 31–41 (esp. 34–36); Borimir Jordan, “The Ceremony of the Helots in Thucydides IV, 80,” AC 59 (1990): 37–69 (esp. 55–58); and Hornblower, CT, II 265–67. The actual creation of the neodamṓdeıs along the very lines pretended on the occasion described in Thuc. 4.80.3–4, an event which appears to have followed the Athenian construction of the fort at Coryphasium in Messenia, and the institution of the Brasídeıoı on similar lines in 424 seem to me to rule out situating at that time the massacre described in this passage: consider the timing of Thuc. 4.80.1–2, 5, and that indicated at 5.34.1, in light of the events described in Rahe, SSAW, Chapter 5; Part II, preface; and Chapters 6 and 7.

12. For further details and a full citation of the primary sources and the secondary literature, see Rahe, SR, Chapter 1.

13. For the details and a full citation of the primary sources and the pertinent secondary literature, see Rahe, SR, Chapters 3 and 4.

14. See Rahe, SR, passim.

15. See Rahe, PC, Chapters 3 through 6.

16. Cleomenes’ policy and his relations with Leotychidas: Rahe, PC, Part I.

17. Cleomenes and Athens: see Rahe, PC, Chapter 2.

18. Evidence Athens the mother city of Ionia: Carl Roebuck, “Tribal Organization in Ionia,” TAPhA 92 (1961): 495–507. Weight given ethnicity: John Alty, “Dorians and Ionians,” JHS 102 (1982): 1–14, and Naoíse Mac Sweeney, Foundation Myths and Politics in Ancient Ionia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). That the foundation myths simplified what was a messy process is no surprise: Irene S. Lemos, “The Migrations to the West Coast of Asia Minor: Tradition and Archaeology,” in Frühes Ionien: Eine Bestansaufnahme, ed. Justus Cobet, Volkmar von Graeve, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, and Konrad Zimmerman (Mainz am Rhein: Von Zabern, 2007), 713–27, and Naoíse Mac Sweeney, “Separating Fact from Fiction in the Ionian Migration,” Hesperia 86:3 (July–September 2017): 379–421.

19. Imported grain: for a citation of the evidence and the pertinent secondary literature, see Rahe, PC, Chapter 3, note 3.

20. Leotychidas and the other Peloponnesian leaders notwithstanding, islanders admitted to Hellenic League: Hdt. 9.106.2–4, Diod. 11.37.1–3. Bridges gone, Peloponnesians sail home: Hdt. 9.114.1–2; Diod. 11.37.4. Xanthippus and Athenians besiege and seize Sestos: Hdt. 9.114.2–121.1, Thuc. 1.89.1–2, Diod. 11.37.5. Dinner table of the Peiraeus: Arist. Rh. 1411a14. See also Schol. Ar. Eq. 262. On the Hellenic League itself, I do not think the positions argued by Dietmar Kienast, “Der Hellenenbund von 481 v. Chr.,” Chiron 33 (2003): 43–77, and David Yates, “The Tradition of the Hellenic League against Xerxes,” Historia 64:1 (2015): 1–25, are mutually exclusive. The considerable authority accorded the hegemon is compatible with a recognition that the members of the league collectively wield the ultimate authority.

Chapter 1. The Postwar Settlement

Epigraph: Thuc. 1.77.6.

1. Note Rahe, PC, Chapters 7 and 8, and see, now, Robert Garland, Athens Burning: The Persian Invasion of Greece and the Evacuation of Attica (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2017).

2. Aeginetan-Athenian hostilities: Rahe, PC, Chapters 4 and 5. Residue of resentment, Rahe, PC, Chapter 7.

3. Fetters for Greece: Polyb. 18.11.4–5. Plutarch on the Acrocorinth: Arat. 16.5. Corinth as naval and commercial center collecting tolls: Thuc. 1.13.2–5, Strabo 8.6.20–25. Note Catherine Morgan, “Corinth, the Corinthian Gulf, and Western Greece during the Eighth Century BC,” ABSA 83 (1988): 313–38. Colonizer, military power: Salmon, WC, 81–185, and IACP no. 227. There is also material of value in Donald W. Engels, Roman Corinth: An Alternative Model for the Ancient City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990). Respect for artisans: Hdt. 2.167. Díolkos: Georges Raepsaet, “Le Diolkos de l’Isthme à Corinthe: Son Tracé, son functionnement, avec une annexe, Considérations techniques et mécaniques,” BCH 117:1 (1993): 233–61, and Walter Werner, “The Largest Ship Trackway in Ancient Times: The Diolkos of the Isthmus of Corinth, Greece, and Early Attempts to Build a Canal,” trans. Timm Weski IJNA 26:2 (1997): 98–119. Attempt to shape security environment: Rahe, PC, Chapter 1. That Pallene was thought to lie in Thrace (and not in territory belonging to Macedonia) and that when the ancients spoke of the Chalcidice they had in mind only Sithonia and the area directly north of it is clear: Pernille Flensted-Jensen, “The Chalkidic Peninsula and Its Regions,” in Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Pernille Flensted-Jensen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000), 121–31.

4. Corinth long favorable to Athens: after reading Hdt. 6.108.2–5, see 5.74.1–75.1, 90–93, 6.89; Thuc. 1.41.1–2. Spartans hostile to tyranny: Thuc. 1.18.1, Arist. Pol. 1312b7–8. Overthrow tyrants, sponsor oligarchies: Thuc. 1.19, 76.1; Arist. Pol. 1307b23–24.

5. For the stories told by Herodotus, some of them undeniably false, see Rahe, PC, Chapters 7 and 8.

6. Late origins of Corinthian-Athenian antagonism: Thuc. 1.103.4.

7. Themistocles as arbitrator: Theophrastus ap. POxy. 1012, F9.23–24, with Luigi Piccirilli, “Temistocle evergetes dei Corciresi,” ASNP 3 (1973): 317–55, and Gli Arbitrati interstatali greci (Pisa: Marlin, 1973), 61–66, and Plut. Them. 24.1. Cf. Marr, Commentary, 138–39, who joins Piccirilli in crediting Herodotus’ claims concerning Adeimantus and therefore thinks Theophrastus’ report fictitious, with Thuc. 1.136.1, which confirms that he really was considered a “benefactor” of the Corcyraeans, and see Frost, PT, 200–203. For the timing, however, see Salmon, WC, 258 (with n. 5).

8. Opposition to Athens’ rebuilding her city walls: Thuc. 1.90.1–2, Diod. 11.39.1–3, Nep. Them. 6.2–4, Plut. Them. 19.1–2. As these passages suggest, prior to the Persian Wars, it was the norm for a pólıs to enjoy the protection of walls: Rune Frederiksen, Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period, 900–480 BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Evidence strongly suggesting (but not proving) Corinthian pressure at this time: Thuc. 1.69.1. Aeginetan role: Plut. Them. 19.2. As Marr, Commentary, 120, points out, the emendation suggested long ago by Schaefer is attractive: the otherwise unknown Polyarchus mentioned in Plutarch’s text could well be the Aeginetan Polycritus mentioned at Hdt. 8.92. Note also 6.49–50, 65.1, 73, 85–86.

9. See Rahe, PC, Chapter 8.

10. Themistocles the Athenian Odysseus: Plut. Mor. 869f. His diplomatic stratagem at Lacedaemon: Thuc. 1.90.2–4, 93.2; Diod. 11.39.4–40.1; Nep. Them. 6.2–5; Plut. Them. 19.1–2 with Richard E. Wycherley, The Stones of Athens (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 7–25.

11. Themistocles at Sparta: Thuc. 1.90.5–91.7, Diod. 11.40.2–4, Nep. Them. 7. Plutarch’s contention (Them. 19.1–3) that he bribed the ephors in charge may well be right. Themistocles was undoubtedly capable of such a thing, and the Spartans were notoriously susceptible. Cf. Marr, Commentary, 118–19, who thinks this implausible, with Frost, PT, 173–74, who points to the story’s early provenance: see Andoc. 3.38 with Theopompus of Chios FGrH 115 F85. Role of Aristeides: Arist Ath. Pol. 23.3–4 with Rhodes, CAAP, 292–95. Abronichus and Themistocles: Hdt. 8.21. For the friendship between the latter two, see [Them.] Ep. Gr. 4.743–44, 10.751 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 4.10, 21–26, 10.1–3 (Doenges), which should be read with an eye to Chapter 2, note 39 and its context, below.

12. Spartans in secret vexed: Thuc. 1.92, Plut. Them. 19.3. Cf. Fornara/Samons, ACP, 118–21, who dismiss the entire episode.

13. Themistocles’ archonship and date: Thuc. 1.93.3 and Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.34.1 with T. J. Cadoux, “The Athenian Archons from Kreon to Hypsichides,” JHS 68 (1948): 70–123 (at 116, with note 252), and David M. Lewis, “Themistocles’ Archonship,” Historia 22:4 (4th Quarter 1973): 757–58. The Peiraeus and fleet: Thuc. 1.93, 2.13.6–7 with Ar. Eq. 813–16, Diod. 11.41–43, Nep. Them. 6.1, Plut. Them. 19.3–5. See Johannes S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C. (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof, 1970), 46–50; Robert Garland, The Piraeus: From the Fifth to the First Century B.C. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987), 14–22, 163–65; and the judicious remarks of Frost, PT, 175–77, and Marr, Commentary, 120–22.

14. Spartan phılotımía: Arist. Pol. 1271a14, Plut. Ages. 5.5. Agṓgē: Rahe, SR, Chapter 1. Exaggerated respect for the old: Hdt. 2.80.1; Xen. Mem. 3.5.15; Plut. Lyc. 15.2–3, 20.15, Mor. 227f, 232f, 235c–f, 237d; Just. Epit. 3.3.9 with Ephraim David, Old Age in Sparta (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1991). Young barred from public office: Xen. Lac. Pol. 4.7 with 2.2. Denied commands: Thuc. 4.132.3. Prohibited from traveling abroad: Isoc. 11.18, Pl. Prt. 342b–d. The “common” assembly: Diod. 11.50. Role of gerousía within the Spartan polıteía: Rahe, SR, Chapter 2, to which I would now add the telling discussion in Borimir Jordan, “The Ceremony of the Helots in Thucydides IV, 80,” AC 59 (1990): 37–69 (at 57–69).

15. Aristotle on the propensities of the young and the old: Rh. 1389a2–1390a22. Spartans cautious in battle: Hdt. 9.46–48 and Thuc. 5.63–65. Spartans more concerned with minimizing their own losses than with making their victory complete: cf. Thuc. 1.70.2–5 with 5.73.4, and see Paus. 4.8.11; Plut. Lyc. 22.9–10, Mor. 228f. For similar reasons, the Lacedaemonians were prohibited from dispersing to strip the bodies of the enemy dead: Plut. Mor. 228f–229a and Ael. VH 6.6. Propensity to confuse the expedient with the honorable: cf. the charge made at Thuc. 5.105.3–4 with the pattern of behavior evidenced at 3.52–68. Slow to go to war: 1.23.6, 68–71, 88, 118.2, 5.107, 109.

16. Themistocles on likely mode of Mede return: Thuc. 1.93.7.

17. Athenian characterization of the Spartans: Thuc. 5.105.4. For a fully articulated argument diametrically opposed to the one unfolded in this volume and its successor, cf. the work of Jon E. Lendon—“Spartan Honor,” in Polis and Polemos: Essays on Politics, War, and History in Ancient Greece, ed. Charles D. Hamilton and Peter Krentz (Claremont, CA: Regina Books, 1997), 105–26; “Athens and Sparta and the Coming of the Peloponnesian War,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles, ed. Loren J. Samons (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 258–81; and SoW, passim—who contends that, collectively, the Spartans were far more like Achilles than Nestor. For an appreciative and, I think, judicious critique of Lendon’s argument, see Karl Walling, “Thucydides on Policy, Strategy, and War Termination,” Naval War College Review 66:4 (Autumn 2013): 47–85 (at 83–84, n. 25).

18. Pausanias’ fleet: Thuc. 1.94.1; Diod. 11.44.1–2; Plut. Arist. 23.1, Cim. 6.1.

19. Cypriot campaign and aims: Thuc. 1.94.1–2; Diod. 11.44.1–2; Nep. Paus. 2.1, Arist. 2.2. Soli, Salamis, and Paphos: Aesch. Pers. 891–92. See Meiggs, AE, 38–39, 482. There is reason to suppose that on the island Panhellenic sentiment was stronger than Franz Georg Maier, “Factoids in Ancient History: The Case of Fifth-Century Cyprus,” JHS 105 (1985): 32–39, is inclined to acknowledge.

20. Strategic significance of Cyprus: Diod. 14.98.3.

21. Strategic importance of Byzantium and role played by current: Polyb. 4.38.2–44.11 (esp. 4.38.2–11, 44.1–11). Its capture: Thuc. 1.94.1–2, Nep. Paus. 2.2, Diod. 11.44.3 with Meiggs, AE, 39.

22. Pausanias’ misconduct and the complaints it elicited: Hdt. 8.3.2; Thuc. 1.95.1–5 (with 75.2, 96.1); Diod. 11.44.3–6; Nep. Paus. 2.2–6; Plut. Arist. 23.1–5, Cim. 6.1–3; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F6.2–3, 8.1.

23. Gongylus medizes: Thuc. 1.128.4–7, Diod. 11.44.3, Nep. Paus. 2.2–4. Dascyleium: Takuji Abe, “Dascylium: An Overview of the Achaemenid Satrapal City,” Acta Academiae Antiquitatis Kiotoensis 12 (2012): 1–17. Road system, pony express, and the need for formal sanction: Hdt. 5.52–54, 8.98; Xen. Cyr. 8.6.17–18 with David Graf, “The Persian Royal Road System,” Achaemenid History 8 (1994): 167–89; Briant, CA, 364–87; and Pierre Briant, “From the Indus to the Mediterranean: The Administrative Organization and Logistics of the Great Roads of the Achaemenid Empire,” in Highways, Byways, and Road Systems in the Pre-Modern World, ed. Susan E. Alcock, John Bodel, and Richard J. A. Talbert (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2012), 185–201. The precise route followed by the Sardis-Susa road through and beyond Anatolia is disputed: David H. French, “Pre- and Early-Roman Roads of Asia Minor: The Persian Royal Road,” Iran 36: (1998): 15–43.

24. See, for example, Adolf Lippold, “Pausanias von Sparta und die Perser,” RhM n.f. 108:4 (1965): 320–41.

25. Descendants of Gongylus in western Asia: Xen. An. 7.8.8, Hell. 3.1.6 with Giovanni Fogazza, “Sui Gongilidi di Eretria,” PP 27:142–44 (January–June 1972): 129–30, and Lewis, SP, 54 (with n. 29).

26. Pausanias’ conduct inspires charge of Medism: Thuc. 1.95.1–5, 128.3–131.1; Diod. 11.44.3–6; Nep. Paus. 2.2–6; Plut. Cim. 6.1–3; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F6.2–3. Adoption of Persian mores and manners: Thuc. 1.130.1–131.1; Diod. 11.44.5, 46.1–3 read in light of Hdt. 1.96–101. Supposed betrothal to daughter of Darius’ cousin and admiral, the satrap Megabates: 5.32 with Rahe, PC, Chapter 6, n. 27, where I discuss the Greek and Persian evidence concerning Megabates’ career.

27. Balance of powers at Lacedaemon: Rahe, SR, Chapter 2. Chance, for the most part, governs the selection of ephors, who tend to be “nobodies”: Pl. Leg. 3.692a and Arist. Pol. 1270b29, 1272a27–34, 1272b33–37 with Peter A. Brunt, “Spartan Policy and Strategy in the Archidamian War,” Phoenix 19:4 (Winter 1965): 255–80 (at 278–80), reprinted in Brunt, Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 84–111 (at 110–11), and Paul A. Rahe, “The Selection of Ephors at Sparta,” Historia 29:4 (4th Quarter 1980): 385–401. For further discussion of this controversial question and for additional secondary literature, see Rahe, SR, Chapter 2, note 51 (in context). Monthly exchange of oaths: Xen. Lac. Pol. 15.7 with Rahe, SR, Chapter 2, note 46.

28. Ephors can arrest and indict kings on capital charges: Hdt. 6.82, Plut. Agis 18–19. Note Thuc. 1.131. Fate of fifth-century kings: Ste. Croix, OPW, 350–53, and Anton Powell, “Divination, Royalty and Insecurity in Classical Sparta,” in Sparta: The Body Politic, ed. Anton Powell and Stephen Hodkinson (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2010), 85–135.

29. Fifth-century Spartan kings not known to have been indicted on a capital charge: see Rahe, SR, Chapter 2, note 48.

30. Pausanias’ recall, partial acquittal, and fine: Thuc. 1.95.3–5, Nep. Paus. 2.6, Aristodemus FGrH 104 F6.2–3. It is possible that the Persian hyparch in command at Byzantium surrendered quickly. If, however, there was a siege, it is likely to have lasted well into the winter or even into early spring when provisions will have begun to run out: William T. Loomis, “Pausanias, Byzantion and the Formation of the Delian League: A Chronological Note,” Historia 39:4 (1990): 487–92.

31. Simonides authors the couplet: Paus. 3.8.2. Inscription altered: ML no. 27 with Thuc. 1.132.2–3, Nep. Paus. 1.3. Plataean complaint embraced at meeting of the Amphictyonic League: Dem. 59.96–98 with Plut. Mor. 873c–d. Regarding the date, cf. Charles W. Fornara, “Two Notes on Thucydides,” Philologus 111:3 (January 1967): 291–95 (at 291–94), with Jeremy Trevett, “History in [Demosthenes] 59,” CQ n.s. 40:2 (1990): 407–20 (at 409–11).

32. Pausanias’ trireme rammed: Plut. Arist. 23.4–6. Dorcis’ leadership rejected, no successor sent: Thuc. 1.95.6–7. Note Xen. Hell. 6.5.34.

33. Concern with prestige: Detlef Lotze, “Selbstbewusstsein und Machtpolitik: Bemerkungen zur machtpolitischen Interpretation spartanischen Verhaltens in den Jahren 479–477 v. Chr.,” Klio 52 (1970): 255–75, and Antony Andrewes, “Spartan Imperialism?” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. Peter D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 91–102 (at 91–95).

34. Spartans fear corruption: Thuc. 1.95.7, Plut. Arist. 23.7.

35. Maritime hegemony willingly relinquished to Athens by Sparta: Thuc. 1.95.7 and Xen. Hell. 6.5.34. The Spartans are apt to have been of two minds, however: Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.4–5 with Rhodes, CAAP, 294–96. Note also Isoc. 4.72, 7.79–80, 12.67. Cf. Fornara/Samons, ACP, 121–22.

36. Athenian eagerness for maritime hegemony: Hdt. 7.161, 8.2–3; Plut. Them. 7.3–4.

37. Machinations of the Athenian commanders: Hdt. 8.3; Thuc. 1.95.1–2, 96.1; Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.4–5; Diod. 11.46.4–5; Nep. Arist. 2.2–3; Plut. Arist. 23.1–6, Cim. 6.1–3 with Rhodes, CAAP, 294–95. Note also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F7.

38. Foundation and putative aims of Delian League, pretext for levying of assessments, Aristeides’ accomplishment: Thuc. 1.96, 3.10.3–4, 5.18.5, 6.76.3–4; Arist. Ath. Pol. 23.4–5; Diod. 11.44.6, 47; Nep. Arist. 2.3; Plut. Arist. 25.1–3; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F7 with Jakob A. O. Larsen, “The Constitution and Original Purpose of the Delian League,” HSCP 51 (1940): 175–213; Nicholas G. L. Hammond, “The Origins and the Nature of the Athenian Alliance of 478/7 B.C.,” JHS 87 (1967): 41–61; Meiggs, AE, 42–67, 459–64; Kurt Raaflaub, “Beute, Vergeltung, Freiheit? Zur Zielsetzung des Delisch-Attischen Seebunden,” Chiron 9 (1979): 1–22; and Rhodes, CAAP, 294–96. Cf. Raphael Sealey, “The Origins of the Delian League,” in ASI, 233–55, who overstates the significance of the quest for booty; and Noel D. Robertson, “The True Nature of the ‘Delian League,’ 478–461 BC,” AJAH 5:1–2 (1980): 64–96, 110–33 (esp. 64–78), who unwittingly demonstrates that one must engage in special pleading on a very great scale if one is to make a case against the view advanced by Thucydides and Aristotle and supported by Herodotus that the islanders and the Ionians were, with rare exceptions, enthusiastic supporters of the new league and the continued war against the Mede. Aristeides’ reputation already existent in the 480s: Plut. Arist. 7.5–8. Note Hdt. 8.79.1, 95. Artaphernes’ earlier assessment: 6.42.2. In this connection, see Lucia Nixon and Simon Price, “The Size and Resources of Greek Cities,” in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, ed. Oswyn Murray and Simon Price (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 137–70; Lisa Kallet-Marx, Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1–5.24 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 21–56; David Whitehead, “HO NEOS DASMOS: ‘Tribute’ in Classical Athens,” Hermes 126:2 (1998): 173–88; and Samons, EO, 84–91.

39. Callaeschrus ap. [Them.] Ep. Gr. 4.743 (Hercher) = Them. Ep. 4.12 (Doenges), which should be read in light of Chapter 2, note 39 and its context, below.

40. Aristeides on Athens’ likely transformation: Arist. Ath. Pol. 24 with Rhodes, CAAP, 296–309, who is less willing than I am to join Aristotle in crediting Aristeides with prescience. Transformation effected: Meiggs, AE, 255–72; Jack M. Balcer, “Imperial Magistrates in the Athenian Empire,” Historia 25:3 (3rd Quarter 1976): 257–87; Moses I. Finley, “The Athenian Empire: A Balance Sheet,” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, 103–26, reprinted in Finley, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, ed. Brent D. Shaw and Richard P. Saller (London: Chatto & Windus, 1981), 41–61; and the evidence collected in Chapter 6, note 23, below.

41. Fleet collected from Byzantium: Ephorus FGrH 70 F191.6, Diod. 11.60.1–2.

42. Fort at Doriscus and garrison: Hdt. 7.59.1, 105–6; Livy 31.16.4. Capacity: Pliny NH 4.43. Fort at Eion: Hdt. 7.107. Both serve as depots: Hdt. 7.25.

43. Maskames at Doriscus: Hdt. 7.105–6.

44. Strategic significance of mines and timber near Mount Pangaeum well known: Hdt. 1.64.1, 5.23–24, 7.112; Thuc. 4.108.1; Xen. Hell. 5.2.17; Arist. Ath. Pol. 15.2. See Paul Perdrizet, “Skaptésylé,” Klio 10 (1910): 1–27 (esp. 9–11); Russell Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 118–20, 126–28, 356–57; and Errietta M. A. Bissa, Governmental Intervention in Foreign Trade in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden: Brill, 2009), esp. 33–42 107–25.

45. Siege of Eion: Thuc. 1.98.1, Ephorus FGrH 70 F191.6, Aeschin. 3.183–85, Diod. 11.60.1–2, Plut. Cim. 7.1–8.2. Note Nepos’ confused reference to Cimon’s defeat of the Thracians: Cim. 2.2. Menon of Pharsalus’ contribution: Dem. 13.23, 23.199. Exceptional quality and military prowess of Thessalian cavalry: Emma Aston and Joshua Kerr, “Battlefield and Racetrack: The Role of Horses in Thessalian Society,” Historia 67:1 (2018): 2–35. Boges’ dramatic end: Hdt. 7.107, Polyaen. Strat. 7.24. Cimon is also said to have diverted the river Strymon and to have used it to undermine the burnt brick walls at Eion: Paus. 8.8.7–9. Date of siege and capture: Schol. Aeschin. 2.31 with ATL, III 158–60. Cf. J. D. Smart, “Kimon’s Capture of Eion,” JHS 87 (1967): 136–38, who prefers the date under which Diodorus (11.60) lists the siege of Eion and all of Cimon’s other ventures down to and including Eurymedon.

46. Eion captured, and agricultural settlement established nearby: Thuc. 1.98.1, Plut. Cim. 7.3. Character of Eion itself: Thuc. 4.102.3, 106.3–107.2; Diod. 12.73.3 with IACP no. 630

47. Seizure of Skyros (IACP no. 521), occasion and reasons for doing so: Thuc. 1.98.2; Ephorus FGrH 70 F191.6; Nep. Cim. 2.5; Paus. 1.17.6, 3.3.7; Plut. Thes. 35.1–36.1, Cim. 8.3–6; Schol. Ael. Aristid. Or. 3.561 (Dindorf). Date of oracle: Plut. Thes. 36.1–2 with ATL, III 160. A dedicatory inscription found at Delphi may be related to the putative recovery of Theseus’ remains: W. G. Forrest, RBPh 34 (1956): 541–42. Miltiades’ seizure of Lemnos (IACP, 756–57): Hdt. 6.137–40. Skyros, Lemnos, and Imbros (IACP no. 483) as prized Athenian possessions: Andoc. 3.12; Xen. Hell. 4.8.15, 5.1.31. For the geopolitical logic dictating their acquisition that emerged when the trireme supplanted the penteconter as the ship of the line, see John K. Davies, “Corridors, Cleruchies, Commodities, and Coins: The Pre-History of the Athenian Empire,” in Handels-und Finanzgebaren in der Ägäis im 5. Jh. v. Chr./Trade and Finance in the 5th Century BC Aegean World, ed. Anja Slawisch (Istanbul: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 2013), 43–66. Note also Gerassimos G. Aperghis, “Athenian Mines, Coins, and Triremes,” Historia 62:1 (2013): 1–24.

48. Focus on growth in Athenian power: Thuc. 1.23.5–6, 33.2–33.3, 88, 118.2–3 with P. K. Walker, “The Purpose and Method of ‘The Pentekontaetia’ in Thucydides, Book I,” CQ n.s. 7:1/2 (January-April 1957): 27–38, and Philip A. Stadter, “The Form and Content of Thucydides’ Pentecontaetia,” GRBS 34:1 (Spring 1993): 35–72.

49. Precision Thucydides’ stated aim: Thuc. 1.22. Brevity, omissions, chronological imprecision: Gomme, HCT, I 361–413. It is, I think, telling that those who accuse Thucydides of tendentiousness and special pleading tend to fall prey to both themselves: cf., for example, Robertson, “The True Nature of the ‘Delian League,’ 478–461 BC,” 64–96, 110–33; Badian, Outbreak, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 125–62; Johan Henrik Schreiner, “Anti-Thukydidean Studies in the Pentekontaetia,” SO 51 (1976): 19–63, “More Anti-Thukydidean Studies in the Pentekontaetia,” SO 52 (1977): 19–38, and Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press, 1997); and Robert D. Luginbill, Author of Illusions: Thucydides’ Rewriting of the History of the Peloponnesian War (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2011), 39–59, with W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia,” “Thucydides 1.61.3–5,” and “Diodoros’ Pentekontaetia,” in Pritchett, Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1–171, and “Historians of the Pentekontaetia,” in Pritchett, Greek Archives, Cults, and Topography (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996), 40–91, and see Chapter 3, note 15, below. For an extended discussion of what Thucydides had in mind when he spoke of the growth in Athenian power, see Kallet-Marx, Money, Expense, and Naval Power in Thucydides’ History 1–5.24, 21–69; and for the logic underpinning his selection of the events to relate, see Tim Rood, Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 225–48.

50. The proximity of Carystus (IACP no. 373) to the Doros channel between Euboea and Andros with its difficult currents no doubt enhanced its importance: Morton, RPEAGS, 90–91 (with n. 36).

51. Tenedos: IACP no. 793. Strategic importance: Christopher L. H. Barnes, “The Ferries of Tenedos,” Historia 55:2 (2006): 167–77. Strength of current and winds in the Bosporus and Hellespont: Morton, RPEAGS, 42–45, 87–90. Having gone swimming in the Bosporus myself and having witnessed from the safety of a motorboat a friend’s failed attempt to swim the Hellespont, I can testify to the strength of this current.

52. Athens at Carystus: Thuc. 1.98.3 with Hdt. 9.105 and Roger Brock, “The Tribute of Carystos,” EMC 40 n.s. 15:3 (1996): 357–70. For the city’s experience with the Persians and with Themistocles, see Hdt. 6.99, 8.66.2, 112.2, 121.1. For its strategic importance, note Hom. Od. 3.173–79, and see Xen. Hell. 3.4.4, 5.4.61; Plut. Ages. 6.1–6; Dem. 19.326; Arr. Anab. 2.1.2. See Malcolm B. Wallace, “Herodotos and Euboia,” Phoenix 28:1 (Spring 1974): 22–44 (esp. 38–41).

53. The revolt of Naxos (IACP no. 507) and of other cities: Thuc. 1.98.4–99.3. Silver or empty ships: Plut. Cim. 11.

54. Herms: Aeschin. 3.183–85, Dem. 20.112, Plut. Cim. 7.4–8.2 with Robin Osborne, “The Erection and Mutilation of the Herms,” PCPhS 211, n.s. 31 (January 1985): 47–73 (esp. 58–64), reprinted in Osborne, Athens and Athenian Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 341–67 (esp. 355–62).

55. Bones of Theseus: Paus. 1.17.6; Plut. Thes. 36.2–5, Cim. 8.5–7 with Anthony J. Podlecki, “Cimon, Skyros and ‘Theseus’ Bones,’” JHS 91 (1971): 141–43.

56. Aleuad Medizers: Hdt. 7.6, 130, 9.58. Leotychidas in Thessaly and his fate thereafter: 6.72, Paus. 3.7.8–10, Plut. Mor. 859d with W. Robert Connor, “The Razing of the House in Greek Society,” TAPhA 115 (1985): 79–102.

57. The date of 476/5 that Diodorus (11.48.2) provides for Leotychidas’ death is, in all likelihood, that of his banishment. The historian’s claim (11.48.2) that Leotychidas reigned for twenty-two years and his later report (12.35.4) that his grandson Archidamus did so for forty-two years are consistent with the evidence from other sources indicating that Leotychidas reigned from ca. 491 (Hdt. 6.65–72 with N. G. L. Hammond, “The Expedition of Datis and Artaphernes,” in CAH IV² 491–517 [at 498–99, 502]) to 469 and that the latter succeeded him that year and died in 427/6. It, moreover, makes good sense to suppose that a punitive expedition of the sort that Leotychidas led against the Thessalians would have been mounted by the Hellenes relatively soon after the Persian Wars: see Joseph Johnston, “Chronological Note on the Expedition of Leotychidas,” Hermathena 21:46 (1931): 106–11, who lays out the evidence in detail. Note also Connor, “The Razing of the House in Greek Society,” 99–102: and David M. Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” in CAH V² 499. Cf., however, Andre S. Schieber, “Leotychidas in Thessaly,” AC 51 (1982): 5–14, who argues for a slightly earlier date (478/7), and Marta Sordi, “Atene e Sparta dalle guerre persiane al 462–1 a.C.,” Aevum 50:1/2 (January–April 1976): 25–41, who argues for a considerably later date (469).

58. Spartan deliberations: Diod. 11.50 with Kagan, Outbreak, 51–52, 378–79.

59. Diodorus as an epitomator and his use of Ephorus for this period: Peter Green, “Introduction,” in DS, 1–47, who cites the pertinent secondary literature and is more appreciative of Diodorus’ virtues than are most scholars—apart from Kenneth S. Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990). For a useful, if somewhat exaggerated, reminder of Diodorus’ defects, see Pritchett, “Diodoros’ Pentekontaetia,” 163–71, and “Historians of the Pentekontaetia,” 48–77. See also Walther Kolbe, “Diodors Wert für die Geschichte der Pentekontaetie,” Hermes 72:3 (1937): 241–69, and Meiggs, AE, 447–58. Ephorus as an historian of hegemonic regimes and their decay: Rahe, SR, Introduction, n. 8. As Sacks, Diodorus Siculus and the First Century, 42–49, demonstrates, however, although Diodorus shared Ephorus’ interest, he did not slavishly follow his judgments in every particular.

60. Cf., however, Fornara/Samons, ACP, 122–24.

61. Plut. Arist. 23.7.

Chapter 2. Persia Redivivus

Epigraph: Julian Stafford Corbett, Some Principles of Maritime Strategy (London: Longmans Green, 1911), 15–16.

1. Xerxes at Sardis: Hdt. 8.117, 9.3.1, 107.3–108.1.

2. Xerxes awaits news at Sardis: Hdt. 9.107.3. Artabazus brings news to Anatolia: 9.89.1–90.1. Xerxes makes dispositions for defense of Anatolia: Diod. 11.36.7. Dispute whether heads for Susa or Ecbatana: Hdt. 9.108.2, Diod. 11.36.7. Installs new ruler of Cilicia: Hdt. 9.107. Sacks Didyma: Paus. 8.46.3 (with Ctesias FGrH 688 F13.31, where, as the context suggests, Didyma, not Delphi, is intended). Tarries to fortify citadel and construct palace at Celaenae: Xen. An. 1.2.7–9, read in light of Hdt. 7.26–29, with Briant, CA, 559; Lâtife Summerer, “Die Persische Armee in Kelainai,” and Christopher Tuplin, “Xenophon at Celaenae: Palaces, Rivers, and Myth,” in Kelainai-Apameia Kibotos I: Développement urbain dans le contexte anatolien, ed. Lâtife Summerer, Askold Ivantchik, and Alexander von Kienlin (Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions, 2011), 33–54, 71–92; Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre, Empire, Authority, and Autonomy in Achaemenid Anatolia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 54; and Christopher Tuplin, “The Persian Military Establishment in Western Anatolia: A Context for Celaenae,” in Kelainai-Apameia Kibotos II: Une Métropole achéménide, hellénistique et romaine, ed. Askold Ivantchik, Lâtife Summerer, and Alexander von Kienlin (Bordeaux: Ausonius Éditions, 2016), 15–27.

3. Mede’s statement to Dio Chrysostom: 11.149 with Briant, CA, 541–42. Students of Achaemenid history are similarly inclined to underestimate the significance for Persia of Xerxes’ defeat: see, for example, Matt Waters, Ancient Persia: A Concise History of the Achaemenid Empire, 550–330 BCE (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 132.

4. Xerxes’ loot: Hdt. 8.53.2; Plut. Them. 31.1; Arr. An. 3.16.7–8, 7.19.2; Paus. 1.8.5. Xerxes’ inscription: The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, ed. Amelie Kuhrt (London: Routledge, 2007) 7:88. In this connection, see Gojko Barjamovic, “Propaganda and Practice in Assyrian and Persian Imperial Culture,” in Universal Empire: A Comparative Approach to Imperial Culture and Representation in Eurasian History, ed. Peter Fibiger Bang and Dariusz Kolodziejczyk (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 43–59.

5. Cimon’s progress: Plut. Cim. 12.1. Efforts in Caria and Lycia: Diod. 11.60.4–5, Frontin. Strat. 3.2.5. Asia entire: Plut. Comp. Cim. et Lucull. 2.5. Cf. Anthony G. Keen, “Eurymedon, Naxos, and the Purpose of the Delian League,” JAC 12 (1997): 57–79 (esp. 71–78), who interprets the absence of detail in our sources as an indication that the Athenians failed, after the seizure of Eion, to follow through on their pledge to harry the Mede. The fact that we know so little is a function of Thucydides’ decision to restrict his purview to events that dramatically illustrate the growth in Athenian power and of the fact that Plutarch preferred a brief, dramatic summary.

6. Achaemenid raison d’être: Rahe, PC, Chapter 1 and Part II, preface. Plato on defective moral formation of Cambyses, Xerxes, and those of their successors reared by the women at court: Leg. 3.694c–696a. Scholars dismiss: for example, Briant, CA, 515–68. The pertinent passage from Plato’s Laws is notably absent from The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, and the same can be said for the passage from Herodotus that I am about to discuss.

7. Herodotus on Xerxes and his brother’s wife and daughter: 9.108–12. As Lewis, SP, 21–22, observed some years ago, “I am myself disposed to take seriously stories of the irrational caprice and wanton cruelty of monarchs. Nothing is reported of Periander, tyrant of Corinth, which does not find ready parallels in well-attested information about Ali Pasha of Iannina at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and allowing for some differences of institutions, the Persian court will be subject to the same kind of pressures and insecurities which have afflicted the courts of absolute monarchs down to the time of Stalin and perhaps beyond.”

8. See Rahe, PC, Chapter 2.

9. Xerxes once again prepares for war: Just. Epit. 2.15.17–20. Event taken as indicator that a great battle had been fought the summer previous to the spring of 468: Plut. Cim. 8.7–9, as interpreted in ATL, III 160, and W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 5. Naxos, Thasos, and Themistokles’ Flight,” in Pritchett, Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 81–94 (at 93–94).

10. Persian preparations and Greek intelligence well in advance of 480: Hdt. 7.20.1, 138.1, 239; Thuc. 1.14.3. Similar conclusions drawn from the preparations under way in 397/6: Xen. Hell. 3.4.1. Note also Diod. 16.22.2: Rumor traveled fast. In his fourteenth oration, which was delivered in 354/3, Demosthenes evidenced knowledge concerning the Great King’s preparations for the invasion of Egypt that took place in 351/0: George L. Cawkwell, “The Fall of Themistocles,” in Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E. M. Blaiklock, ed. B. F. Harris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 39–58 (at 47–48), reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 95–113 (at 106–7). Advance word before Eurymedon: Pl. Menex. 241d–e. Shift of Delian League treasury discussed in synod before 467 (while Aristeides alive), Samians at time propose move: Plut. Arist. 25.2–3 read in light of Nepos’ dating of Aristeides’ death to the fourth year subsequent to the ostracism of Themistocles (Arist. 3.3). Cf. W. Kendrick Pritchett, “The Transfer of the Delian Treasury,” Historia 18:1 (January 1969): 17–21, who argues that the shift took place at this time, with Plut Per. 12.1–2 and Diod. 12.38.2, 12.40.1, 54.3, 13.21.3; Isoc. 8.126, 15.234; Nep. Arist. 3.1–2, which presuppose that the move took place much later at a time when Pericles was in charge, and see Meiggs, AE, 48.

11. See ATL, III 160, and Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 5. Naxos, Thasos, and Themistokles’ Flight,” 93–94, where it is plausibly argued that the revolt by Naxos was crushed in 470. Breach of established custom: Thuc. 1.98.4.

12. Themistocles and Athenian-Spartan cooperation: Rahe, PC, Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

13. Ambassadors’ argument: Diod. 11.43.

14. The Peiraeus: Thuc. 1.93.3–7.

15. Themistocles and the Amphictyonic League: Plut. Them. 20.3–4 with Hermann Bengtson, “Themistokles und die delphische Amphiktyonie,” Eranos 49 (1951): 85–92, reprinted in Bengtson, Kleine Schriften zur alte Geschichte (Munich: Beck, 1974), 151–57; Frost, PT, 179–80; and Marr, Commentary, 124–25. List of its members: François Lefèvre, L’Amphictionie pyléo-delphique: Histoire et institutions (Athens: École française d’Athènes, 1998), 11–139. Note also Georges Daux, “Remarques sur la composition du conseil amphictionique,” BCH 81 (1957): 95–120, and Simon Hornblower, “Thucydides and the Delphic Amphiktiony,” MHR 22 (2007): 49–51, reprinted with added material in Hornblower, Thucydidean Themes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 54–58.

16. Alexander justified his participation in the games by claiming Argive descent: Hdt. 5.22 with 8.137–39. Note also 9.45.2. Benefactor of Athens and her próxenos: 7.173, 8.143, 9.44–45. Themistocles at Olympia: Plut. Them. 17.4, Paus. 8.50.3. See Ernst Badian, “Greeks and Macedonians,” in Macedonia and Greece in Late Classical and Early Hellenistic Times, ed. Beryl Barr-Sharrar and Eugene N. Borza (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1982), 33–51 (at 34, 45, n. 9).

17. Euainetos’ expedition: Hdt. 7.173.1–2. Themistocles and Aristeides at Pagasae: Plut. Them. 20.1–2, Arist. 22.2–4. Cf. Cic. Off. 3.49 and Val. Max. 6.5 ext.2, who place the fleet in question at Gytheion in Laconia, and Marr, Commentary, 123–24, who (wrongly, in my opinion) thinks this and many another story in Plutarch apocryphal. Vetting by Aristeides and Xanthippus in the past: Diod. 11.42.

18. Spartans out of anger at Themistocles embrace Cimon: Plut. Them. 20.3–4, Cim. 16.1–3, with Marr, Commentary, 124–25. Cimon names son Lacedaemonius: Thuc. 1.45.2 with Schol. Ael. Aristid. Or. 3.515 (Dindorf); Stesimbrotus of Thasos FGrH 107 F6; Plut. Cim. 16.1, Per. 29.1.

19. Cf. Frost, PT, 186–87, who thinks that Themistocles harped on the Spartan threat solely because Aristeides, Xanthippus, and Cimon were now the leaders of the struggle against the Mede.

20. Timing and sponsorship of Phrynichus’ Phoenician Women and of Aeschylus’ Persians and their political import: Plut. Them. 5.5 with Anthony J. Podlecki, The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966), 1–26, and Marr, Commentary, 81. For further evidence pertinent to Aeschylus’ friendship with Themistocles, see [Them.] Ep. Gr. 1.741, 11.751 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 1, 11.5 (Doenges), which should be read with an eye to note 39 and its context, below. Three óstraka from the 470s testify to the fact that Pericles’ older brother Ariphron (Pl. Prt. 320a, Plut. Alc. 1.2) was active in public life at that time: David M. Lewis, “Megakles and Eretria,” ZPE 96 (1993): 51–52. See Davies, APF no. 11811, I–II.

21. Decision to hold ostracism: Arist. Ath. Pol. 43.5, read in light of 22.3, with Rhodes, CAAP, 267–71, 526. Quorum for ostracism itself: Plut. Arist. 7.5–6, Poll. Onom. 8.20, Schol. Ar. Eq. 855, Philochorus FGrH 328 F30.

22. Ostracism of Hipparchus and Megacles as friends of the tyrant and of Xanthippus and Aristeides: Arist. Ath. Pol. 22.4–7, Plut. Arist. 1.1–2.1, 5.1–7.7 with Rhodes, CAAP, 271–81 and, on Xanthippus in particular, James P. Sickinger, “New Ostraka from the Athenian Agora,” Hesperia 86:3 (July–September 2017): 443–508. Marriage of Xanthippus into the Alcmeonid clan: Hdt. 6.131.2 with Davies, APF, nos. 9688, X and 11811, I. Aristeides and Cleisthenes: Plut. Arist. 1.1–2.1, Mor. 790f–791a, 805f with Davies, APF no. 1695, I–II.

23. Candidates for ostracism in the 470s: Stefan Brenne, Ostrakismos und Prominenz in Athen: Attische Bürger des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. auf den Ostraka (Vienna: A. Holzhausens, 2001), 46, 81–84, 95–97, 114–17, 153–54, 177–81, 209–11, 225–28, 235–38, 239–40, 245–47, 377–81. Ariphron among them: note 20, above. Megacles’ second and this Alcibiades’ first ostracism: Lys. 14.39, Andoc. 4.34 with Peter J. Bicknell, “Was Megakles Hippokratous Alopekthen Ostracised Twice?” AC 44:1 (1975): 172–75. Grandfather of this Alcibiades an ally of Cleisthenes: Isoc. 16.26 with SEG XXVII 135. Marriage alliance between the two families: Plut. Alc. 1.1, Pl. Alc. I 105d, Lys. 14.39. Alcibiades a Spartan name: Thuc. 8.6.3. Hereditary próxenos of the Lacedaemonians: 5.43.2, 6.89.2. Callias son of Hipponicus wealthy, said to be a kinsman of Aristeides: Plut. Arist. 25.4–9. Proxenía of Lacedaemon hereditary within his family: Xen. Hell. 6.3.4. See also Davies, APF no. 7826, V–X. There is reason to suspect that Callias son of Cratios was both an Alcmeonid and a kinsman of the son of Hipponicus: see Peter J. Bicknell, “Kallias Kratiou,” in Bicknell, Studies in Athenian Politics and Genealogy (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1972), 64–71; H. A. Shapiro, “Kallias Kratiou Alopekethen,” Hesperia 51:1 (January–March 1982): 69–73, the latter with Davies, APF no. 7826, III–IV; and Brenne, Ostrakismos und Prominenz in Athen, 179–81.

24. Friends of the tyrant: Arist. Ath. Pol. 22.4–6 with Rhodes, CAAP, 271–77. Medizers: ML no. 21; Hdt. 6.115, 121–24.

25. Charges lodged in court: Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.3, Diod. 11.54.3–6, Hyp. Isoc. 7. Cf. Plut. Them. 23, who dates the charges he mentions solely to the period of Themistocles’ sojourn in Argos, with John F. Barrett, “The Downfall of Themistocles,” GRBS 18:4 (Winter 1977): 291–305, who defends Diodorus’ claim that these charges were first lodged prior to Themistocles’ ostracism. Cf. Marr, Commentary, 133–35, and Arthur Keaveney, The Life and Journey of Athenian Statesman Themistocles (624–460 B.C.?) as a Refugee in Persia (Lewiston, ME: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), 105–8, with Peter Green, “Commentary,” in DS, 114–16, nn. 203–5. Note also Rhodes, CAAP, 319–20.

26. Ostracism of Themistocles: Thuc. 1.135.3; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F6.1; Pl. Grg. 516d; Nep. Them. 8.1, Arist. 3.3; Diod. 11.54.1–55.3; Plut. Them. 22.3; Cic. Amic. 12.42; Euseb. Chron. 2.102–3 (Schoene-Petermann) with Anthony J. Podlecki, The Life of Themistocles: A Critical Survey of the Literary and Archaeological Evidence (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press, 1975), 30–37, 185–94; Marr, Commentary, 130–33; Keaveney, The Life and Journey of Athenian Statesman Themistocles, 104–12; and Green, “Commentary,” 116–20, nn. 206–13. The timeline that Robert J. Lenardon, “The Chronology of Themistokles’ Ostracism and Exile,” Historia 8:1 (January 1959): 23–48, proposed and that Cawkwell, “The Fall of Themistocles,” 39–58, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 95–113, later embraced cannot be sustained given what Mary E. White, “Some Agiad Dates: Pausanias and His Sons,” JHS 84 (1964): 140–52, in the interim demonstrated regarding the longevity of Pausanias. I do not find the attack on White by Frost, PT, 188–91, cogent. The argument that Cawkwell, “The Fall of Themistocles,” 48, 52–53, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 107, 113, made regarding the relationship between the Persian naval buildup and Themistocles’ final fall from grace (which he dated wrongly to 470) applies with no less and, I think, even greater force to his ostracism (which is properly dated to 472, 471, or 470). See Ste. Croix, OPW, 175, and Frost, PT, 188.

27. Faction at Lacedaemon backing Pausanias: Arist. Pol. 1306b22–1307a4. Note also Thuc. 1.134.1. Private expedition, but equipped with skutálē: Thuc. 1.131.1, interpreted in light of Plut. Lys. 19.7–12, Aul. Gell. 17.9.6–15, Schol. Thuc. 1.131.1, Suidas s.v. skutálē. For doubts as to the character of the skutálē, as well as an impressive display of learning, cf. Thomas Kelly, “The Spartan Scytale,” in The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr, ed. John W. Eadie and Josiah W. Ober (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 141–69. It is clear that the word had divers meanings. It is not clear, however, that Plutarch, Aullus Gellius, Thucydides’ scholiast, and the Suidas are in error with regard to Spartan usage.

28. Hedging of bets: Józef Wolski, “Pausanias et le problème de la politique Spartiate (années 480–470),” Eos 47 (1954–1955): 75–94 (at 88–89); Alec Blamire, “Pausanias and Persia,” GRBS 11:4 (Winter 1970): 295–305 (at 299); and James Allan Stewart Evans, “The Medism of Pausanias: Two Versions,” Antichthon 22 (1988): 1–11 (at 7), reprinted with added material in Evans, The Beginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 305–20 (at 313). Cf. Ulrich Kahrstedt, “Sparta und Persien in der Pentekontaetie,” Hermes 56:3 (July 1921): 320–25, who goes too far in suggesting that the authorities at Sparta were fishing at this time for a secret, separate peace with Persia, with Werner Judeich, “Griechische Politik und persische Politik im V. Jahrhundert,” Hermes 58:1 (January 1923): 1–19. It is, of course, perfectly possible and even likely that Pausanias and his supporters had something of the sort in mind.

29. Pausanias’ return to Byzantium: Thuc. 1.128.3, 131.1; Pompeius Trogus ap. Just. Epit. 9.1.3, with Adolf Lippold, “Pausanias von Sparta und die Perser,” RhM 108:4 (1965): 320–41 (at 339–41), whose reliance on Justin’s claim that Pausanias’ sojourn in Byzantium lasted seven years squares nicely with what White, “Some Agiad Dates,” 140–52, has shown regarding the regent’s longevity. Pausanias presumably arrived at Byzantium not long after Cimon had collected the allied fleet and set off for Eion: Ephorus FGrH 70 F191.6, Diod. 11.60.1–2. Cf. ATL, III 158–59; Wolski, “Pausanias et le problème de la politique Spartiate,” 75–94; Raphael Sealey, “The Origins of the Delian League,” in ASI, 233–55 (at 249); Blamire, “Pausanias and Persia,” 299–300, esp. n.17; and John F. Lazenby, “Pausanias, Son of Kleombrotos,” Hermes 103:2 (1975): 235–51 (at 239–40), where this possibility is not even canvassed. On the character of Pausanias’ initial reception at Byzantium, see Christopher F. Lehmann-Haupt, “Pausanias: Heros Ktistes von Byzanz,” Klio 17 (1921): 59–73 (at 59–66), who may well be right.

30. Story told concerning Pausanias’ Medism and the dispatch of Artabazus: Thuc. 1.95.5, 128.3–131.1; Diod. 11.44.3–6; Nep. Paus. 2.2–5. In this connection, see Gabriel Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), passim (esp. 41–42, 47, 89, 91). Artabazus in Greece: Rahe, PC, Chapter 8 and Epilogue.

31. Six to thirteen weeks: Hdt. 5.52–54, 8.98; Xen. Cyr. 8.6.17–18. Skepticism: Charles W. Fornara, “Some Aspects of the Career of Pausanias of Sparta,” Historia 15:3 (August 1966): 257–71, whose critique of Thucydides’ testimony in this particular is endorsed by Mabel Lang, “Scapegoat Pausanias,” CJ 63:2 (November 1967): 79–85 (at 79), reprinted in Lang, Thucydidean Narrative and Discourse, ed. Jeffrey S. Rusten and Richard Hamilton (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011), 37–47 (at 37–38); Peter J. Rhodes, “Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles,” Historia 19:4 (November 1970): 387–400 (at 389, n. 12); Blamire, “Pausanias and Persia,” 297–98, esp. n. 7; Antony Andrewes, “Spartan Imperialism?” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. Peter D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 91–102 (at 302–3, n. 5); Andre S. Schieber, “Thucydides and Pausanias,” Athenaeum 58 (1980): 396–405 (at 397, with n. 5); Evans, “The Medism of Pausanias,” 3 (esp. n. 15), 5–6, reprinted with added material in Evans, The Beginnings of History, 308 (esp. n. 15), 311–13; and Badian, Outbreak, 52–54 with 167–68, n. 17, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 130–32 with 225, n. 17. Note also Cawkwell, “The Fall of Themistocles,” 49–51, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 108–10; and Lazenby, “Pausanias, Son of Kleombrotos,” 238–39.

32. Six- or seven-year period at Byzantium (depending on whether we suppose that inclusive or exclusive reckoning was used): Pompeius Trogus ap. Just. Epit. 9.1.3 with Fornara, “Some Aspects of the Career of Pausanias at Sparta,” 267–71; Lang, “Scapegoat Pausanias,” 79, reprinted in Lang, Thucydidean Narrative and Discourse, 38; Meiggs, AE, 71–74, 465–68; W. G. G. Forrest, “Pausanias and Themistokles Again,” Lakōnikaí Spoudaí 2 (1975): 115–20 (at 117); Evans, “The Medism of Pausanias,” 3, reprinted with added material in Evans, The Beginnings of History, 309; and Ernst Badian, “Toward a Chronology of the Pentecontaetia down to the Renewal of the Peace of Callias,” EMC 32 n.s. 7:3 (1988): 289–320 (at 300–302), reprinted in Badian, FPP, 73–107 (at 86–88). Note also David M. Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” in CAH V² 499. The argument advanced by White, “Some Agiad Dates,” 140–52, concerning Pausanias’ longevity lends considerable support to the supposition that Pompeius Trogus’ claim could well be chronologically correct.

33. Xerxes pauses to fortify citadel of Celaenae: Xen. An. 1.2.7–9. Efficiency of Achaemenid communication network: Henry P. Colburn, “Connectivity and Communication in the Achaemenid Empire,” JESHO 56 (2013): 29–52.

34. Pausanias and Persian airs: Thuc. 1.130.1–131.1, Nep. Paus. 3.1–3.

35. Aristotle on the Spartan agṓgē: Pol. 1338b9–38. The harshness displayed by Pausanias reminds one of Xenophon’s depiction of the Spartan Clearchus: Hell. 1.3.14–19, An. 2.6 with Diod. 13.66.5–6. Note also Thuc. 2.67.4, 3.32.1–2, 93.2, 5.51.1–52.1. See Simon Hornblower, “Sticks, Stones, and Spartans: The Sociology of Spartan Violence,” in War and Violence in Ancient Greece, ed. Hans van Wees (London: Duckworth, 2000), 57–82, reprinted with added material in Hornblower, Thucydidean Themes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 250–74.

36. Pausanias has epigram inscribed on bronze bowl: Hdt. 4.81.3. Nymphis of Heracleia FGrH 432 F9 reports that it was still there in his own day.

37. It is worth noting that Briant, CA, 560–63, thinks Thucydides’ report consistent with Xerxes’ modus operandi.

38. Pausanias’ misconduct: Thuc. 1.128.3–131.1; Nep. Paus. 3.1–3; Paus. 3.17.7–9; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F6.2–3, 8.1; Plut. Cim. 6.2–6, Mor. 555c. Partisans in Lacedaemon: Thuc. 1.134.1, Arist. Pol. 1306b22–1307a4. Expulsion from Byzantium: Thuc.1.131.1, Just. Epit. 9.1.3, Plut. Cim. 6.5–6 with Meiggs, AE, 71–73, 465–68.

39. Pseudepigraphical letter to Pausanias: [Them.] Ep. Gr. 2.741–42 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 2.5 (Doenges). For a critical edition of the letters, an English translation, a discussion of their character and provenance, a detailed commentary, and a suggestive essay on the principal fifth-century source used by the author, see The Letters of Themistocles, ed. Norman A. Doenges (New York: Arno Press, 1981). For another, in large part complementary overview, see Robert J. Lenardon, “Charon, Thucydides, and ‘Themistokles,’” Phoenix 15:1 (Spring 1961): 28–40, who provides his own translation in Lenardon, The Saga of Themistocles (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), 154–93. As both of these scholars demonstrate, the letters in question contain accurate information not found in the histories of Herodotus or Thucydides or in any other surviving work. Note also [Them.] Ep. Gr. 14.754 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 14 (Doenges).

40. Cimon’s admirer: Ion of Chios F105–6, 109 (Leurini) = FGrH 392 F12–13, 15 ap. Plut. Cim. 5.3, 9.1–6 and Per. 5.3 with Felix Jacoby, “Some Remarks on Ion of Chios,” CQ 41:1/2 (January–April 1947): 1–17, reprinted in Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur grieschischen Geschischtscriebung, ed. Herbert Bloch (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956), 144–68, George L. Huxley, “Ion of Chios,” GRBS 6:1 (1965): 29–46; Martin L. West, “Ion of Chios,” BICS 32:1 (December 1985): 71–78, reprinted in West, Hellenica: Selected Papers on Greek Literature and Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011–13), III 424–36; and Christopher B. R. Pelling, “Ion’s Epidemiai and Plutarch’s Ion,” and Anne Geddes, “Ion of Chios and Politics,” in The World of Ion of Chios, ed. Victoria Jennings and Andrea Katsaros (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 75–138. For a thoughtful exploration of Ion’s ambiguous status as a Chian and a supporter of Athens, see Alastair Blanshard, “Trapped between Athens and Chios: A Relationship in Fragments,” in The World of Ion of Chios, 155–75.

41. Byzantium, Sestos, and Persian captives: Ion of Chios F106 (Leurini) = FGrH 392 F13 ap. Plut. Cim. 9.1–6, Polyaen. Strat. 1.34.2. Cf. A. G. Woodhead, “The Second Capture of Sestos,” PCPhS 181, n.s. 1 (1950–51): 9–12, and Sealey, “The Origins of the Delian League,” 248–52, who hold the view that there was no second capture of Sestos and that these passages refer to the capture of Sestos engineered by Xanthippus in 479, with Miroslav Ivanov Vasilev, The Policy of Darius and Xerxes towards Thrace and Macedonia (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 218–25, who shows that this assertion is unfounded.

42. Pausanias’ eventual recall from Colonae and mode by which message sent: Thuc.1.131.1, Nep. Paus. 3.3–4 with Meiggs, AE, 71–73, 465–68. Location of Colonae: Xen. Hell. 3.1.13, 16; Strabo 13.1.19, 47, 62 with John M. Cook The Troad: An Archaeological and Topographical Study (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 219–21, 360–62, and IACP no. 782. Status vis-à-vis the Delian League: ATL, I 316–19, III 203–7. Significance of its likely inclusion within the satrapy governed by Artabazus: Briant, CA, 560–63.

43. The account I give here regarding the trireme, its crew, and the tactics developed is an abbreviated restatement of the analysis I presented in Rahe, PC, Chapter 1 (with notes 31–36, where I cite the evidence and the pertinent secondary literature). Triremes in Persian fleet vary in size: Fabrice Bouzid-Adler, “Les Marines des peuples d’origine louvite à l’époque achéménide,” Res Antiquae 11 (2014): 1–18, and “Les Navires des Grecs d’Asie au service des Grands Rois perses,” Res Antiquae 12 (2015): 1–16. Some as short as one hundred feet: Judith McKenzie. “Kition,” in Shipsheds of the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. David Blackman and Boris Rankov (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 349–62. Phocaean advice before Lade: Hdt. 6.11.

44. Artemisium and Salamis: Rahe, PC, Chapters 6 and 7.

45. Proverb: Pl. Leg. 3.689d.

46. Themistocles’ triremes only partially decked: Thuc. 1.14.3, Plut. Cim. 12.2 with John S. Morrison, John F. Coates, and N. Boris Rankov, The Athenian Trireme: The History and Reconstruction of an Ancient Greek Warship, 2nd edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 153–61. Persian triremes top-heavy: Hdt. 8.118.1–4, Plut. Them. 14.1–3 with Lucien Basch, “Phoenician Oared Ships,” MM 55:1 (January 1969): 139–62 and 55: 3 (August 1969): 227–45.

47. Cimon’s triremes fully decked, number of marines maximized: Plut. Cim. 12.2. I see no reason for supposing that Cimon’s motives were political. Given the character of the operations he conducted in this period, hoplites in considerable numbers were needed; and, as we shall see, at Eurymedon, as at Mycale, their presence was a boon. Cf., however, Barry S. Strauss, “Democracy, Kimon, and the Evolution of Athenian Naval Tactics in the Fifth Century BC,” in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on His Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Pernille Flensted-Jensen, Thomas Heine Nielsen, and Lene Rubinstein (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanu Press, 2000), 315–26. The fact that light-armed troops are rarely mentioned tells us a great deal about the ideological hegemony of the hoplite ethos. It should not be taken as an indication that they were not employed. See Matthew Trundle, “Light Troops in Classical Athens,” in War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, ed. David M. Pritchard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 139–60, on whose passing remarks in this regard one could expand. Epıbátaı: Tristan Herzogenrath-Amelung, “Naval Hoplites: Social Status and Combat Reality of Classical Greek Epibatai,” Historia 66:1 (2017): 45–64.

48. From Cnidus to Phaselis: Plut. Cim. 12.2–4. Note also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F11.1.

49. Battle of Eurymedon: Thuc. 1.100.1, Plut. Cim. 12.5–13.3, Nep. Cim. 2.2–3 (where Eurymedon is confused with Mycale). Ephorus or an epitomator (FGrH 70 F191.9–10) and, thereafter, Diodorus (11.60.4–62.3) appear to have conflated this battle with a later struggle of a similar character that took place in the vicinity of Cypriot Salamis in 451: Eduard Meyer, “Die Schlacht am Eurymedon und Kimons cyprischer Feldzug,” in Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1892–99), II 1–25. See also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F11.2; Frontin. Strat. 2.9.10; Aristid. Or. 13.152, 46.156 (Dindorf). Cf. Keen, “Eurymedon, Naxos, and the Purpose of the Delian League,” 57–67, who denies that Xerxes had ordered a buildup of forces in preparation for an attempt to retake the Aegean and suggests that Cimon’s initial purpose was a raid for plunder and that he opted for a preemptive attack when the Persians rallied to drive his armada back to the Aegean. The fact that Cimon had so large a fleet shows that, from the outset, he had far more in mind than a mere raid for plunder.

50. Booty, burial, dedications, acropolis wall, and foundations for Long Walls: Plut. Cim. 13.2, 5–7; Paus. 1.28.3, 29.14 with Margaret C. Miller, Athens and Persia in the Fifth Century BC: A Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 38–40. Cimon becomes wealthy: Matthew A. Sears, Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 69–74. With regard to the decision to bury the dead from Eurymedon in the public cemetery, see Pritchett, GSAW, IV 123–24, 177–78. For another species of commemoration, see Margaret C. Miller, “I Am Eurymedon: Tensions and Ambiguities in Athenian War Imagery,” in War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, 304–38. For exceedingly muddled accounts of Cimon’s role vis-à-vis the Long Walls, see Andoc. 3.5, Aeschin. 2.172–73. There is no reason to doubt Plutarch’s testimony in this regard: David H. Conwell, Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–64 (esp. 4–7, 19–54). For further muddle, see Nep. Cim. 2.5.

51. Cimon and the generals as judges, Sophocles’ victory, and the date: Plut. Cim. 8.8–9 with Podlecki, The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy, 42. Likelihood that Eurymedon was fought the previous campaigning season: ATL, III 160, and Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 5. Naxos, Thasos, and Themistokles’ Flight,” 93–94. Procedures for judging: Maurice Pope, “Athenian Festival Judges: Five, Seven, or However Many,” CQ n.s. 36:2 (1986): 322–26. To suppose that Eurymedon was fought later than 466, one must suppose Thucydides an ignoramus or a liar and Ephorus and Plutarch in error: see, for example, Johan Henrik Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press, 1997), 38–49. This I find implausible.

Chapter 3. Shifting Sands

Epigraph: William Shakespeare, Macbeth 1.3.56–59, in Shakespeare, The Complete Works, ed. Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 978.

1. Import of Eurymedon: Moses I. Finley, “The Fifth-Century Athenian Empire: A Balance Sheet,” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, ed. Peter D. A. Garnsey and C. R. Whittaker (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 103–26 (at 105–6), reprinted in Finley, Economy and Society in Ancient Greece, ed. Brent D. Shaw and Richard P. Saller (London: Chatto & Windus, 1981), 41–61 (at 42–44).

2. Egypt prone to revolt: Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BCE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

3. Miltiades wounded, tried, fined, jailed, dead: Rahe, PC, Chapter 5, note 32. Cimon, Elpinike, Callias, and the payment of the fine: Nep. Cim. 1, Plut. Cim. 4.4–8, Dio. Chrys. 73.6 with Davies, APF nos. 7825, 8429. Ephorus FGrH 70 F64 emphasizes in this regard Cimon’s own marriage to a wealthy wife—presumably, Isodike daughter of the Alcmeonid Euryptolemos.

4. Terms of peace and timing: Pl. Menex. 241d–242a, Isoc. 4.120, Lycurg. Leocr. 72–73, Plut. Cim. 13.4–5, Just. Epit. 2.15.17–20, Ammian. Marc. 17.11.3, Aristodemus FGrH 104 F13, Suda s.v. Kallías and Kímōn with Ernst Badian, “The Peace of Callias,” JHS 107 (1987): 1–39, reprinted with added material in Badian, FPP, 1–72 (at 1–60). Cf. Pétros J. Stylianou, “The Untenability of Peace with Persia in the 460s B.C.,” Meletai kai Upomnemata 2 (1988): 339–71, and Fornara/Samons, ACP, 171–75, with Badian, “The Peace of Callias: Appendix,” FPP, 61–69, and see Stadter, CPP, 150–51, and Jonathan M. Hall, “Eleusis, the Oath of Plataia, and the Peace of Kallias,” in Hall, Artifact and Artifice: Classical Archaeology and the Ancient Historian (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 55–76. Note John Walsh. “The Authenticity and the Dates of the Peace of Callias and the Congress Decree,” Chiron 11 (1981): 31–63 (esp. 31–41), who—wrongly in my view—supposes that the treaty was negotiated with Artaxerxes shortly after Xerxes’ death. Persian protocol: Xen. Hell. 5.1.31 with Victor Martin, “Quelques remarques à l’occasion d’une nouvelle édition des Staatsverträge des Altertums,” MH 20 (1963): 230–33. Note John O. Hyland, Persian Interventions: The Achaemenid Empire, Athens and Sparta, 450–386 BCE (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), 164–68 (with 7–10). When the terms were renewed with Artaxerxes in 449 after the battles at Cypriot Salamis, Callias was once again the Athenian interlocutor in the negotiations: Chapter 6, note 15, below. They were also renewed and perhaps revised at the behest of an Athenian diplomat named Epilycus, not long after the winter of 424/3 when, Artaxerxes having died, Darius II fought his way to the throne: Rahe, SSAW, Chapter 6. If the timing of the original peace and even its existence is in dispute, it is because, in his great history, Thucydides fails to give due weight to Persia and, in consequence, omits matters of real importance: note 7, below. Most scholars think there was no such peace until 449: Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “The Peace of Callias,” in Athenian Studies Presented to W. S. Ferguson, HSPh Supplement I (1940), 121–56, reprinted in Wade-Gery, EGH, 201–32; Kagan, Outbreak, 107–9; Ste. Croix, OPW, 310–14; Meiggs, AE, 128–51; Stylianou, “The Untenability of Peace with Persia in the 460s B.C.,” 339–71; David M. Lewis, “The Thirty Years’ Peace,” in CAH V2 121–46 (at 121–27); George L. Cawkwell, “The Peace between Athens and Persia,” Phoenix 51:2 (Summer 1997): 115–30, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 151–69; and Loren J. Samons II, “Kimon, Kallias and Peace with Persia,” Historia 47:2 (2nd Quarter 1998): 129–40. Some think there was none until 423 or thereafter: Raphael Sealey, “The Peace of Callias Once More,” Historia 3:3 (1955): 325–33, and Harold B. Mattingly, “The Peace of Kallias,” Historia 14: 3 (July 1965): 273–81, reprinted in Mattingly, The Athenian Empire Restored: Epigraphical and Historical Studies (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 107–16. Others doubt whether there was ever an agreement at all: see note 6, below. Although Callisthenes made no mention of the accord negotiated in the wake of Eurymedon, it is a mistake to read Plut. Cim. 13.4 as asserting that he expressly denied its existence: see A. Brian Bosworth, “Plutarch, Callisthenes, and the Peace of Callias,” JHS 110 (1990): 1–13. As Badian, “The Peace of Callias: Appendix,” 71–72, observes, Plutarch’s point is merely that Callisthenes is silent about the peace and attributes the Great King’s subsequent self-restraint to fear (which was no doubt the reason why he agreed to a cessation of hostilities). Cimon’s failure to follow up on his victory at Eurymedon weighs strongly against our supposing that he thought it possible and desirable to launch a general assault on the Persian empire as such. Cf., however, George Cawkwell, Thucydides and the Peloponnesian War (London: Routledge, 1997), 38, and Michael Flower, “From Simonides to Isocrates: The Fifth-Century Origins of Fourth-Century Panhellenism,” CA 19:1 (April 2000): 65–101 (at 77–89), who think otherwise.

5. On this point, I agree with Fornara/Samons, ACP, 171–74. I would go beyond them only in asserting that there must have been negotiations and an informal agreement.

6. No treaty: Theopompus of Chios FGrH 115 F153–54. Some scholars side with Theopompus: David Stockton, “The Peace of Callias,” Historia 8:1 (January 1959): 61–79; Christian Habicht, “Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege,” Hermes 89:1 (1961): 1–35; and Klaus Meister, Die Ungeschichtlichkeit des Kalliasfriedens und deren historische Folgen (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1982).

7. Thucydides’ neglect of Persian affairs: Antony Andrewes, “Thucydides and the Persians,” Historia 10:1 (January 1961): 1–18.

8. The argument so ably advanced by A. James Holladay, “The Détent of Kallias,” Historia 35:4 (4th Quarter 1986): 503–7, reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 55–60, with regard to the agreement made in 449 applies with even greater force to the accord reached, I believe, ca. 468 or 467.

9. Achaemenid Zoroastrianism and the obligations of Ahura Mazda’s viceroy on earth: Rahe, PC, Chapter 1, the preface to Part II, and Chapter 5. For further discussion and a citation of the secondary literature that has appeared since my volume, see Robert Rollinger, “Royal Strategies of Representation and the Language(s) of Power: Some Considerations on the Audience and Dissemination of the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions,” in Official Epistolography and the Language(s) of Power, ed. Stephen Procházka, Lucian Reinfandt, and Sven Tost (Vienna: Österreichschen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015), 117–30; Matt Waters, “Xerxes and the Oathbreakers: Empire and Rebellion on the Northwest Front,” in Revolt and Resistance in the Ancient Classical World and the Near East: In the Crucible of Empire, ed. John J. Collins and J. G. Manning (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 93–102; and Hyland, Persian Interventions, 1–14 (esp. 7–10).

10. Xerxes assassinated: The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period, ed. Amelie Kuhrt (London: Routledge, 2007) 7:90–91; Ctesias FGrH 688 F13.33–F14.34; Diod. 11.69; Ael. VH 13.3. Pompeius Trogus attributes assassination to decline in majesty of his kingship (Just. Epit. 3.1.1–2), as does Aelian (VH 13.3). The commander of the bodyguard may have had other motives as well: Arist. Pol. 1311b36–39. For another view, cf. Josef Wiesehöfer, “Die Ermordung des Xerxes: Abrechnung mit einem Despoten oder eigentlicher Beginn einer Herrschaft?” in Herodot und die Epoche der Perserkriege: Realitäten und Fiktionen, ed. Bruno Bleckmann (Cologne: Bohlau, 2007), 3–19. Xerxes’ death appears to have taken place quite early in August 465: Matthew W. Stolper, “Some Ghost Facts from Achaemenid Babylonian Texts,” JHS 108 (1988): 196–98; Christopher Walker, “Achaemenid Chronology and the Babylonian Sources,” in Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism, 539–331 B.C., ed. John Curtis (London: British Museum Press, 1997), 17–25; and Leo Depuydt, From Xerxes’ Murder (465) to Arridaios’ Execution (317): Updates to Achaemenid Chronology (Oxford: BAR, 2008), 9–12. For further discussion, see Briant, CA, 563–67. On “the Chiliarch [commander of the thousand],” see Arthur Keaveney, The Life and Journey of Athenian Statesman Themistocles (624–460 B.C.?) as a Refugee in Persia (Lewiston, ME: Edwin Mellen Press, 2003), 119–29. Cf., however, Michael B. Charles, “The Chiliarchs of Achaemenid Persia: Towards a Revised Understanding of the Office,” Phoenix 69:3/4 (Fall–Winter 2015): 279–303.

11. Wealth of Thasos, strengthening of walls, building of triremes, construction of military harbor: note Hdt. 6.28.1, 46.2–47.2 with IACP no. 526. Empória: Hdt. 7.109.2, 118; Thuc. 1.100.2, Ps.-Skylax 67 with Alain Bresson, “Les Cités grecques et leurs emporia,” in L’Emporion, ed. Alain Bresson and Pierre Rouillard (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 1993), 163–226 (esp. 201–4); Mogens Herman Hansen, “Emporion: A Study of the Use and Meaning of the Term in the Archaic and Classical Periods,” in Yet More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Thomas Heine Nielsen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997), 83–105; and IACP nos. 628, 630–631, 634–35, 638. Their significance for Athens: Christophe Pébarthe, “Thasos, l’empire d’Athènes et les emporia de Thrace,” ZPE 126 (1999): 131–54 (esp. 132–35); Lisa Kallet, “The Origins of the Athenian Economic Arche,” JHS 133 (2013): 43–60 (esp. 46–48); and Zosia Halina Archibald, Ancient Economies of the Northern Aegean: Fifth to First Centuries BC (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), passim (esp. 258–68). Note also the empórıon at Pistyros in the interior: Matthew A. Sears, Athens, Thrace, and the Shaping of Athenian Leadership (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 25–31. Role of Paros in colonizing the region: Michalis Tiverios, “Greek Colonisation of the Northern Aegean,” in Greek Colonisation: An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, ed. Gocha R. Tsetskhladze (Leiden: Brill, 2006–8), II 1–154 (at 68–91). Mines and marble quarries on island, wine trade, commercial orientation, length of walls, and military and commercial harbors at Thasos: Robin Osborne, Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient City and Its Countryside (London: G. Phillip, 1987), 75–81 (esp. 79–81); Yves Granjean and François Salviat, Guide de Thasos (Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, 2000), 43–192; and Robin Osborne, “The Politics of an Epigraphic Habit: The Case of Thasos,” in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes, ed. Lynette Mitchell and Lene Rubinstein (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009), 103–14. Mines on the mainland: note Strabo 7 F34, and cf. Paul Perdrizet, “Skaptésylé,” Klio 10 (1910): 1–27, with Meiggs, AE, 570–72. Note also Lucia Nixon and Simon Price, “The Size and Resources of Greek Cities,” in The Greek City from Homer to Alexander, ed. Oswyn Murray and Simon Price (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 137–70 (esp. 152–53). As I learned when I sojourned on Thasos from 29 June–3 July 2017, the remains there are sufficient to enable one to trace the entire circuit of her walls, the moles and breakwaters of her military harbor, and at least some of the shipsheds contained therein.

12. Thasos submits to Mardonius, cooperates with Darius and Xerxes: note Hdt. 6.43.4–44.2, 46.1, 48.1, 7.118.

13. Revolt of Thasos and its occasion: Thuc. 1.100.2–3, Nep. Cim. 2.5, Diod. 11.70.1, Plut. Cim. 14.2 with Pébarthe, “Thasos, l’empire d’Athènes et les emporia de Thrace,” 135–39, and Kallet, “The Origins of the Athenian Economic Arche,” 43–60. Note Thuc. 4.102, Schol. Aesch. 2.31.

14. One city, one vote in Delian League and the consequences: Thuc. 3.10.5–11.4 with Gomme, HCT, II 262–65, and Hornblower, CT, I 394–95.

15. Lacedaemon secretly promises Thasos aid: Thuc. 1.101.1–2 with Kagan, Outbreak, 61–62, and Ste. Croix, OPW, 178–79. That this was done in strict secrecy strongly suggests that the promise was proffered on this occasion, as a similar promise would be thirty-three years later, by “the authorities [tà télē]”: consider Thuc. 1.58.1, which, I believe, should be read in light of 4.15.1; and see note 64, below. Although I think Andrewes, HCT IV 23, 134–35, and Hornblower, CT, I 102, right in the abstract, I do not believe that their treatment of the meaning of tà télē in Thuc. 1.58.1 correct: see Ste. Croix, OPW, 203–4. Nor do I see reason to suppose Thucydides in error with regard to the Spartans’ response to this situation, as do Fornara/Samons ACP, 127, and Lendon, SoW, 55. As Ste. Croix, OPW, 179, points out, Thucydides owned a mining concession in the Thraceward region and was intimately familiar with developments there: Thuc. 4.105.1. Cf. Badian, Outbreak, esp. 52–60 with the attendant notes, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 125–62 (esp. 130–37 with the attendant notes), who denies the credibility of Thucydides’ report on the implausible conviction that his history is little more than pro-Athenian propaganda, and Robert D. Luginbill, Author of Illusions: Thucydides’ Rewriting of the History of the Peloponnesian War (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, 2011), 39–59, who holds a similar opinion, with Tim Rood, Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 205–48, and Christopher B. R. Pelling, “Explaining the War,” in Pelling, Literary Texts and the Greek Historian (London: Routledge, 2000), 82–111 (esp. 94–103), who demonstrate that the Athenian historian was a discerning critic of, not a shameless apologist for Athens; and with C. A. Powell, “Athens’ Difficulty, Sparta’s Opportunity: Causation and the Peloponnesian War,” AC 49 (1980): 87–114, and Salmon, WC, 297–300 (with 420–21), who argue with considerable intelligence that the Spartans were apt to concert an attack on Athens whenever it seemed likely to succeed. My contention here is that the motives of the Lacedaemonians were more complex than Powell and Salmon realize: that the Spartans were nearly always of two minds—appreciative of the role played by the Athenians in shielding them from Persia, and nervous and resentful regarding the growth in Athens’ power—and that this perfectly rational ambivalence played as large a role in their calculations as ambition and opportunism. On this point, see George Cawkwell, “Thucydides’ Judgment of Periclean Strategy,” YClS 24 (1975): 53–70, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 134–50. On the “little assembly,” consider Xen. Hell. 3.3.8 in light of Rahe, SR, Chapter 2, note 39.

16. Sparta’s wars at home: Thuc. 1.118.2.

17. Spartans honor Themistocles in 480: Hdt. 8.124.2–3, Thuc. 1.74.1, Plut. Them. 17.3, Aristid. Or. 46.289 (Dindorf) with Borimir Jordan, “The Honors for Themistocles after Salamis,” AJPh 109:4 (Winter 1988): 547–71. Applauded at Olympic games: Plut. Them. 17.4, Paus. 8.50.3, Ael. VH 13.43.

18. Thucydides kinsman of Cimon: Eugene Cavaignac, “Miltiade et Thucydide,” RPh 3 (1929): 281–85, and Davies, APF no. 7268, IV-VII.

19. Thucydides on Themistocles: 1.138.3. For at least some of the events that Thucydides has in mind, see Hdt. 7.143–44, 8.22, 56–64, 74–83, 108–10, 123–25; Thuc. 1.137.3–138.2. For a perceptive article, appreciative of Themistocles’ display of genius in and before 481, that I neglected to cite in Rahe, PC, Chapter 5, note 67, see A. James Holladay, “The Forethought of Themistocles,” JHS 197 (1987): 182–87, reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 33–42. See also Richard Cox, “Thucydides on Themistocles,” Politikos 2 (1992): 89–107.

20. Themistocles at Argos, travels within the Peloponnesus: Thuc. 1.135.3. Pressure to assume high office: [Them.] Ep. Gr. 1–2.741–42 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 1.7–8, 2.2–3 (Doenges).

21. See W. G. G. Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” CQ n.s. 10:2 (November 1960): 221–41, and “Pausanias and Themistokles Again,” Lakōnikaí Spoudaí 2 (1975): 115–20. Note also Ste. Croix, OPW, 173–77, and Katherine M. Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese: The Transition from Archaic to Classical Politics (Aldershot: Avebury, 1986), 86–103.

22. Corinthian leader on Spartan weakness nearer home: Xen. Hell. 4.2.11–12.

23. According to the pseudepigraphical letter from Themistocles to Aeschylus, three of his guest-friends—Nicias, Meleagros, and Eucrates—proffered the invitation: [Them.] Ep. Gr. 1.741 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 1.2–7 (Doenges).

24. This was especially true, as we shall see, in Arcadia: see Antony Andrewes, “Sparta and Arcadia in the Early Fifth Century,” Phoenix 6:1 (Spring 1952): 1–5.

25. Cleomenes and the Arcadians: Hdt. 6.74.1–75.1. Tegea (IACP no. 297) hostile to Lacedaemon: Hdt. 9.37.4. Tegeans at Thermopylae: 7.202. Tegeans at Plataea: 9.26.1–28.3, 31, 53–71. Culture of Tegea: Maria Prezler, “Myth and History at Tegea—Local Tradition and Community Identity,” in DAA, 89–129.

26. Mantineia (IACP no. 281) the oldest Arcadian pólıs: Phylarchus FGrH 81 F53. Mantineians and hoplite warfare: Ath. 4.154d. Cf. Xen. Hell. 4.4.13–18 (esp. 17) with 4.5.18, and see Thomas Heine Nielsen, “The Concept of Arkadia—The People, Their Land, and Their Organisation,” in DAA, 16–79 (esp. 52–53). Service at Thermopylae: Hdt. 7.202. Late for Plataea: 9.77.1–2.

27. Eleans also late: Hdt. 9.77.3. Both cities banish generals: 9.77.1–3. Military capacity of Elis and Mantineia: Thuc. 5.58.1, 65–74, 75.5; Diod. 12.78.4; Lys. 34.7. See, however, Chapter 4, note 7, below.

28. Ancient Argive hegemony within the Peloponnesus: Thuc. 5.69.1. Seizure of Asine: Rahe, SR, Chapter 4, note 33. Indications that early on Sicyon (IACP no. 228 with Yannis A. Lolos, Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State [Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies, 2011], esp. 59–65, 124–25) and Aegina (IACP no. 358) recognized Argos’ preeminence: Hdt. 6.92. Epidaurus (IACP no. 348) and Troezen (IACP no. 357) as well: Thuc. 5.53 and Diod. 12.78. Religious dimension in latter case: William S. Barrett, “Bacchylides, Asine, and Apollo Pythaieus,” Hermes 82:4 (1954): 421–44 (esp. 426–29, 438–42), reprinted in Barrett, Greek Lyric, Tragedy, and Textual Criticism: Collected Papers, ed. Martin L. West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 289–313 (esp. 295–97, 306–11); Marie-Françoise Billot, “Apollon Pythéen et l’Argolide archaique: Histoire et mythes,” Archaiognōsía 6 (1989–90): 35–100; Barbara Kowalzig, Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 132–60 (esp. 142–60); and Clémence Weber-Pallez, “L’Identité ethnique au service de la définition d’un ensemble territorial: Doriens et Dryopes en Argolide,” Revue Circe 6 (March 2015): http://www.revue-circe.uvsq.fr/numeros-publies/numero-6/. Argive control of Cythera and coastline from Cynouria to Malea: Hdt. 1.82.2. Note Paus. 3.2.7. In this connection, see Matt Kõiv, “Cults, Myths and State Formation in Archaic Argos,” in When Gods Spoke: Researches and Reflections on Religious Phenomena and Artefacts, ed. Peeter Espak, Märt Läänemets, and Vladimir Sazonov (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2015), 125–64 (esp. 126–40). Thyrea: IACP no. 346.

29. Battle of Sepeia and loss of six thousand men: Hdt. 6.76–80, 7.148.2 with Richard A. Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid: From the End of the Bronze Age to the Roman Occupation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972), 93–97. No thirty years’ peace: Hdt. 7.148.4–149.1. Note Paus. 3.4.1, who intimates that the Argives lost over 5,000 men; Polyaen. Strat. 8.33, who asserts that they lost more than 7,000 men; and Plut. Mor. 245d, who claims that they lost 7,777 men.

30. Contingent said to approach city walls: Socrates FGrH 310 F6. Telesilla rallies old men, the young, women, and servants: Plut. Mor. 245c–f. See also 223b–c, Paus. 2.20.8–10, Polyaen. Strat. 8.33, Clem. Al. Strom. 4.19.120.3–4. Oracle and achievement of Argive women: Hdt. 6.77.2.

31. Argive doûloı take over: Hdt. 6.83.1. Períoıkoı admitted to ruling order: Arist. Pol. 1303a6–8 with Detlef Lotze, Metaxu Eleutherôn kai Doulôn: Studien zur Rechtsstellung unfreier Landbevölkerung in Griechenland bis zum 4. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Berlin: Akadmie Verlag, 1959), 8–9, 53–54, 79. Plutarch, following Socrates of Argos FGrH 310 F6, resolves difference—widows and girls marry períoıkoı: Mor. 245f. See Detlef Lotze, “Zur Verfassung von Argos nach der Schlacht bei Sepeia,” Chiron 1 (1971): 95–109. For other views on the character of the outsiders admitted to the ruling order: see Ronald F. Willetts, “The Servile Interregnum at Argos,” Hermes 87:4 (December 1959): 495–506; Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” 222–26; Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid, 97–100; Antony Andrewes, “Argive Perioikoi,” in “Owls to Athens”: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover, ed. E. M. Craik (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 171–78; Charalambos Kritzas, “Aspects de la vie politique et économique d’Argos au Ve siècle avant J.-C.,” in Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’État classique, ed. Marcel Piérart (Athens: École française d’Athènes, 1992), 231–40 (esp. 232–34); Marcel Piérart, “L’Attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide,” in The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen (Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 1997), 321–51 (esp. 327–31); Eric W. Robinson, The First Democracies: Early Popular Government outside Athens (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1997), 82–88; and Cinzia S. Bearzot, “Argo nel V secolo: Ambizioni egemoniche, crisi interne, condizionamenti esterni,” and Paolo A. Tuci, “Il Regime politico di Argo e le sue istituzioni tra fine VI e fine V secolo a.C.: Verso un’instabile democrazia,” in Argo: Una Demcrazia diversa, ed. Cinzia S. Bearzot and Franca Landucci Gattinoni (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 2006), 105–46 (esp. 106–22), 209–71 (at 216–38). Evidence for mid-fifth-century tribal reform: SEG XXIX 361, XXXIII 295, XXXIV 295, XXXV 273, XLI 282, 284, 288, 291; and Thuc. 5.59.5, 72.4 with Michael Wörrle, Untersuchungen zur Verfassungsgeschichte von Argos im 5. Jahrhundert vor Christus (dissertation; Nuremberg: University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 1964), passim (esp. 101–32); Andrewes, HCT, IV 121–23; Kritzas, “Aspects de la vie politique et économique d’Argos au Ve siècle avant J.-C.,” 231–40; Piérart, “L’Attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide,” 332–36; Hartmut Leppin, “Argos: Eine griechische Demokratie des fünften Jahrhunderts v. Chr.,” Ktema 24 (1999): 297–312 (esp. 297–303); and Marcel Piérart, “Argos: Une Autre Démocratie,” in Polis and Politics: Studies in Ancient Greek History Presented to Mogens Herman Hansen on His Sixtieth Birthday (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2000), 297–314 (esp. 307–10). Note also Eric W. Robinson, Democracy beyond Athens: Popular Government in the Greek Classical Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 6–21 (esp. 6–9). For the tribal reforms that took place elsewhere, see Rahe, SR, Chapter 4, n. 16.

32. Argive neutrality: Hdt. 7.145.2, 148–51, 9.12. Sicyon, Phlius, Epidaurus, Troezen, Hermione, and Aegina in Hellenic League: 7.202, 8.1, 42.1, 43, 72, 9.28–30, 85.2–3. Mycenae at Thermopylae, and Mycenae (IACP no. 353) and Tiryns (IACP no. 356) at Plataea: 7.202, 9.28.4, 31.3. Prior close connection between Mycenae, Tiryns, and Argos and dependence early on of the second and perhaps also the first on the last: Piérart, “L’Attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide,” 334–36.

33. Sons of the slain: Hdt. 6.83.

34. The case is made by Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” 221–41. Note also Forrest, “Pausanias and Themistokles Again,” 115–20 (esp. 119, n. 2).

35. Lacedaemon promotes oligarchy: consider Hdt. 5.92α.1, Polyaen. Strat. 2.10.3, Thuc. 5.81, Xen. Hell. 5.2.7 in light of Thuc. 1.18.1 and Arist. Pol. 1307b19–23, and see 1296a32–35. This, for example, is what Cleomenes attempted at Athens in the last decade of the sixth century: see Rahe, PC, Chapter 2.

36. Athens promotes democracy: [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.14, 3.10–11; Arist. Pol. 1296a32–35, 1307b19–23. See Lys. 2.55–56; Isoc. 4.103–6, 12.68; Diod. 12.27.1–2; Xen. Hell. 3.4.7. Note Meiggs, AE, 112–16, and Robinson, Democracy beyond Athens, 137–40, 188–200.

37. Hegemonic regime preferences and civil wars: Thuc. 3.82.1. Note Arist. Pol. 1296a32–35, 1307b19–23.

38. Cimon’s Alcmeonid wife: Plut. Cim. 4.10, 16.1. The identity of the Megacles in question is uncertain: see Wesley E. Thompson, “Euryptolemos,” TAPhA 100 (1969): 583–86, and Davies, APF nos. 8429, IX–XII, and 9688, VIII. Aristocratic consolidation: Sally C. Humpreys, “Public and Private Interests in Classical Athens,” CJ 73:2 (December 1977–January 1978): 97–104 (at 99–100), reprinted in Humphreys, The Family, Women and Death: Comparative Studies (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983), 22–32 (at 25–26). Cf. Stesimbrotos of Thasos FGrH 106 F6 and Plut. Per. 29.2 (which should be read alongside Arist. Ath. Pol. 26.1) with Alec Blamire, “Commentary,” in Plutarch Life of Kimon, ed. and trans. Alec Blamire (London: Institute of Classical Studies, 1989), 163–65, and consider Robert D. Cromey, “The Mysterious Woman of Kleitor: Some Corrections to a Manuscript Once in Plutarch’s Possession,” AJPh 112:1 (Spring 1991): 87–101 (at 87–99). Note also Rhodes, CAAP, 324–28.

39. On Pindar in particular, see Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “Thucydides the Son of Melesias: A Study of Periklean Policy,” JHS 52:2 (1932): 205–27 (esp. 208–15), reprinted in Wade-Gery, EGH, 239–70 (esp. 243–52), with Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” 222–23, 228–29, 232.

40. Aristeides’ role: Arist. Ath. Pol. 41.2 (read in light of his depiction as a popular leader both at 23.2–24 and at Plut. Arist. 22.1). Cf., however, Plut. Cim. 10.8. Themistocles also: Arist. Ath. Pol. 25–27 with R. G. Lewis, “Themistokles and Ephialtes,” CQ n. s. 47:2 (1997): 358–62. Even if the pairing of Themistocles and Ephialtes in Arist. Ath. Pol. 25 is a slip and the pairing should be Pericles and Ephialtes, the slip itself is suggestive. Note Plut. Per. 9.5, 10.7–8 with the subtle allusion in Xen. Mem. 3.5.19–21, and see Rhodes, CAAP, 311–12, and Podlecki, PHC, 46–54. It is also, I think, telling that Aristeides refrained from attacking his onetime rival when Cimon and his allies brought Themistocles to trial: Plut. Arist. 25.10. Cf., however, Samons, PCH, 82–83.

41. Lacedaemon without walls: Thuc. 1.10.2.

42. Epigraphic evidence for democracy at Elis: Lilian H. Jeffery, The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: A Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and Its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C., rev. ed. with a supplement by Alan W. Johnston (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 216–21 (esp. nos. 4–6), with James L. O’Neil, The Origins and Development of Ancient Greek Democracy (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1995), 32–33, 38–39, and Robinson, The First Democracies, 108–11, and Democracy beyond Athens, 28–33. Elean empire: Strabo 8.3.30, 33; Sophie Minon, Les Inscriptions éléennes dialectales (VIe–IIe siècle avant J.-C.) (Geneva: Droz, 2007), I Nos. 5, 10, and 16; and IG I³ 83 = O&R no. 165 = Thuc. 5.47, with Joachim Ebert and Peter Siewert, “Eine archaische Bronzeurkunde aus Olympia mit Vorschriften für Ringkämpfer und Kampfrichter,” in Ebert, Agonismata: Kleine philologische Schriften zur Literatur, Geschichte und Kultur der Antike, ed. Joachim Ebert, Rainer Jakobi, Wolfgang Luppe, and Michael Hillgriber (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1997), 200–236; James Roy, “The Perioikoi of Elis,” in The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community, 282–320, and “The Nature and Extent of Elean Power in the Western Peloponnese,” in Forme sovrapoleiche e interpoleiche di organizzazione nel mondo greco antico, ed. Mario Lombardo and Flavia Frisone (Galatina: Congedo Editore, 2008), 293–302; and James Capreedy, “A League within a League: The Preservation of the Elean Symmachy,” CW 101:4 (Summer 2008): 485–503 (esp. 487–93). Synoecism and date: Leandros FGrH 492 F13, Diod. 11.54.1, Strabo 8.3.2, Paus. 5.4.3 with Mauro Moggi, I Sinecismi interstatali greci I: Dalle Origini al 338 a. C. (Pisa: Marlin, 1976), 157–66, and Nicholas F. Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece: A Documentary Study (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1987), 142–45. Majority of cities in what came to be called Triphylia seized and sacked: Hdt. 4.148.4 with Thomas Heine Nielsen, “Was Eutaia a Polis? A Note on Xenophon’s Use of the Term Polis in the Hellenika,” in Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen and Kurt Raaflaub (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995), 83–102 (at 88). The synoecism did not eventuate in the fortification of Elis at this time, however: Xen. Hell. 3.2.27. Whether the synoecism was but one aspect of a larger political reform is by no means clear. For a thorough discussion of the evidence and a full citation of the secondary literature, see James Roy, “The Synoikism of Elis,” in Even More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Thomas Heine Nielsen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 249–64.

43. Strabo on the synoecisms at Elis, Mantineia, and Tegea: 8.3.2 with Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” 229, n. 8; Moggi, I Sinecismi interstatali greci, 131–56; and Jones, Public Organization in Ancient Greece, 132–35, 139–42. Consider Paus. 8.45.1, where Caryae is listed among the Tegean demes, in light of Vitruvius’ assertion (1.1.5) that the citizens of that pólıs medized during the Persian Wars and were punished in the aftermath. Democracy at Mantineia in 421: Thuc. 5.29.1. Evidence for association between synoecism and democracy and between dioecism and oligarchy: Xen. Hell. 5.2.7, 6.5.3–5. Note also Isoc. 4.126, 8.100; Ephorus FGrH 70 F79; Polyb. 4.27.6, 38.2.11; Diod. 15.5.3–5, 12.1–2; Paus. 8.8.9, 9.14.4; Aristid. Or. 46.287 (Dindorf).

44. Mantineia’s moderate democracy: Arist. Pol. 1318b6–27. Note Ael. VH 2.22. Whether this bears on the question of synoecism is not clear. Cf. Andrewes, “Sparta and Arcadia,” 1–5; Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” 221–41, and “Pausanias and Themistokles Again,” 115–20; and Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese, 86–103, whose reconstructions are attractive, with Wörrle, Untersuchungen zur Verfassungsgeschichte von Argos im 5. Jahrhundert vor Christus, 101–32 (esp. 120–22), and James L. O’Neil, “The Exile of Themistokles and Democracy in the Peloponnese,” CQ n.s. 31:2 (1981): 335–46, who rightly judge them unproven, and see Robinson, The First Democracies, 113–14, and Democracy beyond Athens, 34–40. On the question of synoecism, note also Stephen and Hilary Hodkinson, “Mantineia and the Mantinike: Settlement and Society in a Greek Polis,” ABSA 76 (1981): 239–96.

45. Chios as oligarchy: Thuc. 8.24.4. Samos also: 1.115.2–5. Mytilene as well: 3.27–28, 47.2–3. Later, after Oenophyta in 458, when the admirers of Themistocles were in charge at Athens, the Athenians cooperated with oligarchies in Boeotia; and, at some point, they did so with an oligarchy in Miletus: [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.11. It was easy, in retrospect, to exaggerate Athens’ commitment to the propagation of democracy: cf. Lys. 2.55–56 and Isoc. 4.103–6, 12.68, with Arist. Ath. Pol. 24.2, and see ATL, III 149–54, and Roger Brock, “Did the Athenian Empire Promote Democracy?” in Interpreting the Athenian Empire, ed. John T. Ma, Nikolaos Papazarkadas, and Robert Parker (London: Duckworth, 2009), 149–66.

46. Cf. Forrest, “Themistocles at Argos,” 221–32, and “Pausanias and Themistokles Again,” 115–20 (esp. 119, n. 2), with Lewis, OFPW, 71–78 (at 73, n. 6), reprinted in Lewis, SPGNEH, 9–21 (at 12, n. 6), and see Piérart, “L’Attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide,” 327–40. Note also Tomlinson, Argos and the Argolid, 102–9.

47. Central importance of reconsolidation of the Argolid: Paus. 8.27.1 with Mauro Moggi, “I Sinecismi et le annessioni territoriali di Argo nel V secolo a. C.,” ASNP 3rd ser. 4:4 (1974): 1249–63; Piérart, “L’Attitude d’Argos à l’égard des autres cités d’Argolide,” 321–51; and Bearzot, “Argo nel V secolo,” 106–22. As this makes clear, there was more at stake in this struggle than relative rank: cf., however, Lendon, SoW, 89–90.

48. Main thoroughfare: see Chapter 4, note 58, below.

49. Battle at Tegea with Argos and Tegea: Hdt. 9.33–35, Paus. 3.11.5–7 with Bearzot, “Argo nel V secolo,” 114–18. Roads linking Laconia and Messenia: Giannēs A. Pikoulas, Tò Hodıkò Díktuo tēs Lakōnýkēs (Athens: Ēoros, 2012), 110–36, 392–435, 456–59, 492–502, 562–64. Two kings responsible for the system of roads within the Spartan realm: Hdt. 6.57.4. For further discussion and a more extensive citation of the secondary literature, see Rahe, SR, Chapter 4 (with note 25).

50. Victory at Tegea over Argos and Tegea: Hdt. 9.33–35. Celebration of the Hellenes and the Athenians who fought at Tegea: Simonides F122–23 (Diehl). Simonides an associate of Themistocles: Plut. Them. 5.6–7, Cic. Fin. 2.32.104. Note Anthony J. Podlecki, “Simonides: 480,” Historia 17:3 (July 1968): 257–75.

51. Date of Simonides’ death: Marmor Parium FGrH 239 A 57.

52. With regard to the chronology suggested here, everything turns on the date of Pausanias’ death. To the compelling argument articulated by Mary E. White, “Some Agiad Dates: Pausanias and His Sons,” JHS 84 (1964): 140–52, concerning the likelihood that Pausanias was unmarried in the 480s and very early 470s and that he was still siring sons in the early 460s, I would add that, unless he had a wife with him when he was abroad (which seems unlikely), he had no opportunity to sire more than one legitimate child in the period stretching from the spring of 478 to his the time of his recall from Colonae ca. 470. Cf. Frost, PT, 190–91, with James Allan Stewart Evans, “The Medism of Pausanias: Two Versions,” Antichthon 22 (1988): 1–11 (at 7), reprinted with added material in Evans, The Beginnings of History: Herodotus and the Persian Wars (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), 305–20 (at 313–14), who rightly asserts that White’s argument “has never been refuted.”

53. Pausanias’ demise: Thuc. 1.131.2–135.1; Nep. Paus. 3.4–5.5; Diod. 11.44–45; Paus. 3.14.1, 17.7–9; Plut. Mor. 560f; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F8.2–4.

54. Scholarly speculation: Józef Wolski, “Pausanias et le problème de la politique Spartiate (années 480–470),” Eos 47 (1954–1955): 75–94; Adolf Lippold, “Pausanias von Sparta und die Perser,” RhM 108:4 (1965): 320–41; Raphael Sealey, “The Origins of the Delian League,” in ASI, 233–55 (at 248–49); Charles W. Fornara, “Some Aspects of the Career of Pausanias of Sparta,” Historia 15:3 (August 1966): 257–71; Mabel Lang, “Scapegoat Pausanias,” CJ 63:2 (November 1967): 79–85, reprinted in Lang, Thucydidean Narrative and Discourse, ed. Jeffrey S. Rusten and Richard Hamilton (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2011), 37–47; Peter J. Rhodes, “Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles,” Historia 19:4 (November 1970): 387–400; Alec Blamire, “Pausanias and Persia,” GRBS 11:4 (Winter 1970): 295–305; George L. Cawkwell, “The Fall of Themistocles,” in Auckland Classical Essays Presented to E. M. Blaiklock, ed. B. F. Harris (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 39–58, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 95–113; John F. Lazenby, “Pausanias, Son of Kleombrotos,” Hermes 103:2 (1975): 235–51; Henry D. Westlake, “Thucydides on Pausanias and Themistocles—A Written Source?” CQ n.s. 27:1 (May 1977): 95–110, reprinted in Westlake, Studies in Thucydides and Greek History (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1989), 1–18; Antony Andrewes, “Spartan Imperialism?” in Imperialism in the Ancient World, 91–102 (at 91–95); Andre S. Schieber, “Thucydides and Pausanias,” Athenaeum 58 (1980): 396–405; Frost, PT, 193–99; Félix Bourriot, “Pausanias fils de Cleombrotos: Vainqueur de Platées,” L’Information Historique 44 (1982): 1–16; Evans, “The Medism of Pausanias: Two Versions,” 1–11, reprinted with added material in Evans, The Beginnings of History, 305–20; Badian, Outbreak, 52–54, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 130–32; Marr, Commentary, 136; and Victor Parker, “Pausanias the Spartiate as Depicted by Charon of Lampsacus and Herodotus,” Philologus 149:1 (2005): 3–11.

55. Helot suppliants dragged from Taenarum: Thuc. 1.128.1 with Critias ap. Lib. Or. 25.63 and Borimir Jordan, “The Ceremony of the Helots in Thucydides IV, 80,” AC 59 (1990): 37–69 (esp. 45–50).

56. Letters exchanged: Thuc. 1.128.7, 129.2–3.

57. See A. Ten Eyk Olmstead, “A Persian Letter in Thucydides,” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 49:2 (January 1933): 154–61.

58. Pseudepigraphical letters from Themistocles to Pausanias: [Them.] Ep. Gr. 2, 14.741–42, 754 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 2, 14 (Doenges). Close friends (and presumably guest-friends): Diod. 11.54.3–4, which should be read in light of Gabriel Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 148. Simonides praises Leonidas, Themistocles, and Pausanias but not Cimon: Podlecki, “Simonides: 480,” 257–75.

59. Cimon and Alcmaeon denounce, Leobotes prosecutes Themistocles: consider Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.3; Diod. 11.54.2–6; Plut. Arist. 25.10, Them. 23, Mor. 605e, 805c; Hyp. Isoc. 7; and [Them.] Ep. Gr. 8.747 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 8.1–2 (Doenges) in light of Hdt. 1.65, 7.204, and Peter J. Bicknell, “Leobotes Alkmeonos and Alkmeon Aristonymou,” in Bicknell, Studies in Athenian Politics and Genealogy (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1972), 54–63 (esp. 58). Then, see John F. Barrett, “The Downfall of Themistocles,” GRBS 18:4 (Winter 1977): 291–305, and “Alcmeon, the Enemy of Themistocles,” AW 1 (1978): 67–69; and Frost, PT, 193–99, along with Edwin M. Carawan, “Eisangelia and Euthyna: The Trials of Miltiades, Themistocles, and Cimon,” GRBS 28:2 (Summer 1987): 167–208 (esp. 190–91, 196–200). Cf. Marr, Commentary, 133–38, and Keaveney, The Life and Journey of Athenian Statesman Themistocles, 105–8, with Peter Green, “Commentary,” in DS, 114–16, nn. 203–5.

60. Themistocles helps his friends: Plut. Mor. 807a–b. Ethos of xenía: Hdt. 7.237.2–3 with Herman, Ritualised Friendship and the Greek City, passim. Note also Lynette G. Mitchell, Greeks Bearing Gifts: The Public Use of Private Relationships in the Greek World, 435–323 BC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

61. Incriminating correspondence: Thuc. 1.135.2, Diod. 11.54.2–55.8, Plut. Them. 23 (where the chronology is muddled), Aristodemus FGrH 104 F10.1. Themistocles’ motive: Fornara/Samons, ACP, 126–27.

62. Themistocles’ flight, its timing, his arrival in Anatolia, news of Xerxes’ death: Charon of Lampsacus FGrH 262 F11, Thuc. 1.136.1–137.3, Nep. Them. 8.2–9.1, Diod. 11.55.4–56.4, Plut. Them. 24.1–26.1, Polyaen. Strat. 1.30.7, Aristodemus FGrH 104 F8.2–5 with Robert Flacelière, “Sur quelques points obscurs de la vie de Thémistocles,” REA 55:1–2 (January–June 1953): 5–28; Philip Deane, Thucydides’ Dates, 465–431 B.C. (Don Mills, Ontario: Longman Canada, 1972), 9–13; Forrest, “Pausanias and Themistokles Again,” 115–20; Marcus P. Milton, “The Date of Thucydides’ Synchronism of the Siege of Naxos with Themistokles’ Flight,” Historia 28:3 (3rd Quarter, 1979): 257–75; Ron K. Unz, “The Chronology of the Pentekontaetia,” CQ n.s. 36:1 (1986): 68–85 (at 69–73); Victor Parker, “The Chronology of the Pentecontaetia from 465 to 456,” Athenaeum 81 (1993): 129–47 (at 130–33); Marr, Commentary, 142–55; W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 5. Naxos, Thasos, and Themistokles’ Flight,” in Pritchett, Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 81–94; Briant, CA, 563; Keaveney, The Life and Journey of Athenian Statesman Themistocles, 23–26, 114–16; and Green, “Commentary,” 119–20, n. 213. Death of Hiero ca. 467: Diod. 11.38.7, 66.4. If I follow Flacelière, Forrest, Pritchett, Marr, and Briant, rather than Deane, Milton, Unz, Parker, Keaveney, and, I presume, Green in preferring the testimony of the best manuscript of Plutarch to that of the surviving manuscripts of Thucydides and in supposing that Themistocles slipped past the Athenians besieging Thasos, not Naxos, it is because I believe that what we can surmise concerning the chronology of this period requires it. The sequence of events in Thucydides is clear. The revolt of Naxos preceded the battle of Eurymedon, which came before the revolt of Thasos. The first of these three events began at some point after 476. Deane, Milton, Unz, and Parker to the contrary notwithstanding, it is not likely that these three events were bunched together in and after 466; and, Keaveney to the contrary notwithstanding, the revolt of Naxos is not likely to have continued for more than two or three years, if that. Eurymedon is likely to have taken place in 469, the year before Cimon and his fellow generals were asked to judge the tragic competition; and the beginning of the revolt at Thasos can be dated to 465, the year Xerxes is known to have died. Unless we are to suppose that it took a number of years for Themistocles to journey from Argos to Anatolia via Corcyra, the court of Admetus in Epirus, and Pydna in Macedon—as Marr and Green are inclined to suppose—this journey must be dated to 466 and 465, as Milton, Unz, Parker, Pritchett, and Keaveney point out. This chronology also fits what we can surmise from the investigations of White, “Some Agiad Dates,” 140–52, as they pertain to the timing of Pausanias’ return to Sparta from Byzantium and Colonae, the date of his death, and the subsequent discovery of his correspondence with Themistocles. The fact that, in the Aegean, especially in the summer, northerlies are far more common than southerlies does not rule out Themistocles’ ship having encountered a sirocco on this particular occasion. Nor is there any compelling reason to suppose that he traveled in the summer rather than in the stormy months of winter, and, as I intimate in the text, nothing rules out the supposition that the merchant captain in question was making his way from Pydna in the direction of Asia Minor by way of one or more northern ports of call: cf. Frank J. Frost, “Thucydides i.137.2,” CR n.s. 12:1 (March 1962): 15–16, and PT, 206–8, with White, “Some Agiad Dates,” 148, n. 32, and see Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 5. Naxos, Thasos, and Themistokles’ Flight,” 55–92.

63. Themistocles in Aeolis: Plut. Them. 26.1–2. Cf. Thuc. 1.37.2 and Nep. Them. 8.7, who have him land at Ephesus. Themistocles cannot have contacted or journeyed to the Great King without the help of a satrap: Briant, CA, 563, is right to draw attention to the report in one of the pseudepigraphical letters attributed to Themistocles—[Them.] Ep. Gr. 20.760 (Hercher) = [Them.] Ep. 20.27–28 (Doenges)—that Artabazus (in whose satrapy Cumae and Aeolis more generally were located) was the intermediary and that he supplied the Athenian with a retinue. Themistocles accompanied to Susa by a Persian, sends letter ahead, takes time off to study Persian, then formally presents himself at court: Thuc. 1.137.3–138.2, Nep. Them. 9.1–10.1. Cf. the fanciful tale told by Ephorus, who has him make his way to Susa in the guise of a concubine and meet with Xerxes: Diod. 11.56.4–57.6, Plut. Them. 26.3–27.1 with Frost, PT, 213–14. Meeting with Artabanus: Phanias F26 (Wehrli) ap. Plut. Them. 27.2–8, read in light of Ctesias FGrH 688 F13.33–F14.34, and Diod. 11.69.1–5. Xerxes’ firstborn son Darius an adolescent, Artaxerxes a child: Just. Epit. 3.1. Xerxes’ uncle Artabanus: Hdt. 4.83, 7.10–18, 46.1–53.1, 8.54.1. Megabyzus’ grandfather co-conspirator of Darius: 3.70. Father’s reconquest of Babylon: 3.153–60. Megabyzus son-in-law of Xerxes: Ctesias FGrH 688 F13.26. Accompanies Xerxes as marshal on march into Greece: Hdt. 7.82, 121.3. Thwarts Artabanus’ coup d’état: Ctesias FGrH 688 F14.33. Cf. Diod. 11.69.5–6, 71.1. Challenge mounted by Hystaspes: Ctesias FGrH 688 F14.34. Roxanes’ introduction: Plut. Them. 29.1–2. Cf. Lewis, SP, 19, n. 96; Frost, PT, 214–15; and Marr, Commentary, 150, who believe that the Chiliarch Artabanus cannot have survived the assassination of Xerxes by more than a few days (as Diodorus’ highly compressed account could be taken to imply), with Manetho FGrH 609 F2–3C, p. 50, who testifies that he ruled Persia for seven months, and with Ctesias FGrH 688 F14.33, which presupposes a considerable passage of time. Honor and reward: Thuc. 1.138.2, 4–5, Nep. Them. 10.1–4, Diod. 11.57.6–7, Plut. Them. 29.5–32.4.

64. Little assembly: Xen. Hell. 3.3.8 with Rahe, SR, Chapter 2, note 39.

Part II. Yokefellows No More

Epigraph: Ion of Chios F76 (Leurini) = TrGF 19 F63 = F107 (Blumenthal) ap. Sext. Emp. Math. 2.24.

1. Earthquake and aftershocks: Thuc. 1.101.2, 128.1, 2.27.2, 3.54.5, 4.56.2. Date: Paus. 4.24.5–6, Plut. Cim. 16.4. Cf. Diod. 11.63.1 and Schol. Ar. Lys. 1144, which date the earthquake and the attendant revolt to 469/8, with David M. Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” in CAH V² 499–500, who makes sense of their error. Five houses left standing: Plut. Cim. 16.4–5, Cic. De div. 1.112, Pliny NH 2.191, Ael. VH 6.7, Polyaen. Strat. 1.41.3. Twenty thousand Lacedaemonians dead with more than half of all the Spartiates killed: Diod. 11.63.1–3, 15.66.4. Helot revolt: Thuc. 1.101.2, 2.27.2, 3.54.5, 4.56.2; Critias ap. Lib. Or. 25.63; Diod. 11.63.4–64.1; Plut. Cim. 16.6–7; Paus. 1.29.8, 3.11.8, 4.24.5–6. Battles and losses: Hdt. 9.33–35, 64.2. See also Plut. Lyc. 28.12. For the impact on Lacedaemon, see Ludwig Ziehen, “Das spartanische Bevölkerungsproblem,” Hermes 68:2 (1933): 218–37; W. H. Porter, “The Antecedents of the Spartan Revolution of 243 B.C.,” Hermathena 24:49 (1935): 1–15; and Timothy Doran, Spartan Oliganthropia (Leiden: Brill, 2018), passim (esp. 22–29). Cf. Paul Cartledge, “Seismicity in Spartan Society,” LCM 1 (1976): 25–28, and Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 B.C. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), 221–22, with Mogens Herman Hansen, “Demographic Reflections on the Number of Athenian Citizens, 451–309 B.C.,” AJAH 7 (1982): 172–89 (at 173).

2. See Chapter 4, below.

3. Mycenae at Thermopylae and Plataea: ML no. 27 with Hdt. 7.202, 9.28.4, 31.3; Diod. 11.65.2; Paus. 5.23.2, 10.20.2. Claim on Argive Heraeum: Diod. 11.65.2. Actual control: SEG XIII 246. In this connection, note Cleomenes’ sacrifice at the Heraeum after the battle of Sepeia: Hdt. 6.81. Mycenaean rivalry with Cleonae (IACP no. 351) over Nemean Games: cf. Pind. Nem. 4.17, 10.42 and Paus. 2.15.2–3 with Diod. 11.65.2. Argives’ preoccupation with and their conquest and destruction of Mycenae: Diod. 11.65; Strabo 8.6.19; Paus. 2.15.4, 16.5–6, 5.23.3, 7.25.5–6, 8.27.1. Cleonaeans and Tegeans present among the Argives’ allies: Strabo 8.6.19. Tenea was much closer to Mycenae than was Tegea. But given the fact that the Argives had supported the Tegeans earlier at the battle of Tegea and that the reported Tegean presence at Mycenae makes sense as a matter of reciprocal obligation, I see no reason to follow Marcel Piérart, “Deux notes sur l’histoire de Mycènes (Ve, III/IIes),” in Serta Leodiensia secunda (Liège: Université de Liège, 1992), 377–87 (at 377–82), in emending Tegeatōn on the presumption that Strabo wrote Teneatōn. Cf. W. G. G. Forrest, “Themistokles and Argos,” CQ n.s. 10:2 (November 1960): 221–41, at 230 (with n. 5).

4. Dipaea: Hdt. 9.33–35; Paus. 3.11.5–7, 8.8.6, 45.2.

5. Sons of the slain, struggle with Tiryns: Hdt. 6.83. See also Paus. 2.25.8. Argive reorientation ca. 460: Chapter 4, note 60, below.

6. All of the Arcadians, apart from the Mantineians, with Tegea at Dipaea: Hdt. 9.33–35; Paus. 3.11.7, 8.8.6, 45.2.

7. Location of Dipaea: Paus. 8.30.1 with Thomas Heine Nielsen, Arkadia and Its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 553–54 and IACP no. 268. Location of Arcadian Orchomenos: IACP no. 286. Location of Phigaleia: IACP no. 292. Routes within Laconia: Giannēs A. Pikoulas, Tò Hodıkò Díktuo tēs Lakōnýkēs (Athens: Ēoros, 2012), passim (esp. 54–97, 110–29, 450–59). Routes through and within Arcadia: William Loring, “Some Ancient Routes in the Peloponnese,” JHS 15 (1895): 25–89 (esp. 75–77); Gomme, HCT, IV 32, and Yannis (Giannēs) A. Pikoulas, “The Road-Network of Arkadia,” in DAA, 248–319 (esp. 258, 261–63, 272, 274–80, 293–96, 302). See also Giannēs A. Pikoulas, “Tò Hodıkò díktuo tēs kentrikēs Arkadías,” in Praktikà toû 4. Dıethnoûs Sinedríou Peloponnesıakōn Spoudōn (Athens: Peloponnesiaka Supplement No. 19:2, 1992–93), 201–6, reprinted in Giannēs A. Pikoulas, Arkadía: Sullogē meletōn (Athens: Ēoros, 2002), 359–66. Material signs of Lacedaemonian hegemony in south-central Arcadia: Catherine Morgan, “Cultural Subzones in Early Iron Age and Archaic Arkadia,” in DAA, 382–456 (esp. 400–406).

8. See Roderick T. Williams, The Confederate Coinage of the Arcadians in the Fifth Century BCE (New York: American Numismatic Society, 1965), with Colin M. Kraay, Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London: Methuen, 1976), 97–98, who redates the issue to the period after the Persian Wars, and with David M. Lewis, “Mainland Greece, 479–451 B.C.,” in CAH V² 105, who points to Thuc. 5.47.6 and argues that a confederacy had been formed. For doubts as to the existence of such a confederacy, see Thomas Heine Nielsen, “Was There an Arkadian Confederacy in the Fifth Century B.C.?” in More Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Mogens Herman Hansen and Kurt Raaflaub (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996), 39–61, and Arkadia and Its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods, 113–57. Note Maria Pretzler, “Arcadia: Ethnicity and Politics in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE,” in The Politics of Ethnicity and the Crisis of the Peloponnesian League, ed. Peter Funke and Nino Luraghi (Washington, DC: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2009), 86–109. For an overview of the Arcadians and their land, see Thomas Heine Nielsen, “The Concept of Arkadia—The People, Their Land, and Their Organisation”; Mary E. Voyatzis, “The Role of Temple Building in Consolidating Arkadian Communities”; Madeleine Jost, “Les Schémas de peuplement de l’Arcadie aux époques archaïque et classique”; James Roy, “The Economies of Arkadia”; and Catherine Morgan, “Cultural Subzones in Early Iron Age and Archaic Arkadia,” in DAA, 16–79, 130–68, 192–247, 320–456. Standard three-obol daily allowance: Thuc. 5.47.6, Xen. Hell. 5.2.21.

9. One file deep: Isoc. 6.99.

Chapter 4. A Parting of the Ways

Epigraph: Winston S. Churchill, My Early Life: A Roving Commission, 1930 (Glasgow: William Collins Sons, 1959), 235.

1. Rents, landslides, collapsing buildings, fate of ephebes: Plut. Cim. 16.4–5. See Strabo 8.5.7, Cic. Div. 1.12, Plin. NH 2.191. Collapse of buildings, many pinned in the debris: Diod. 11.63.1–2. Women and young children especially vulnerable: Ludwig Ziehen, “Das spartanische Bevölkerungsproblem,” Hermes 68:2 (1933): 218–37, and W. H. Porter, “The Antecedents of the Spartan Revolution of 243 B.C.,” Hermathena 24:49 (1935): 1–15.

2. Fourth year after Archidamus’ succession as king: Plut. Cim. 16.4 with Chapter 1, note 57, above; and David M. Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” in CAH V² 499–500. Sounds alarm, rallies compatriots against the helots: Diod. 11.63.4–6, Plut. Cim. 16.6–7, Polyaen. Strat. 1.41.3.

3. Ion hails Archidamus, praises Lacedaemon: Ion of Chios F90 (Leurini) = F27 (West) = F27 (Blumenthal) ap. Ath. 11. 463a–c, 496c and Ion of Chios F76 (Leurini) = TrGF 19 F63 = F107 (Blumenthal) ap. Sext. Emp. Math. 2.24 with George L. Huxley, “Ion of Chios,” GRBS 6:1 (1965): 29–46 (at 31–33). Ion resided at Athens in this period; had ample contact with Cimon; and may well be the source for all of the anecdotes concerning this period that appear in Plutarch’s biography of the man. If this is the case, as seems highly likely, there is reason to suspect that Ion accompanied Cimon on his first expedition to Lacedaemon in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake and the helot revolt: note Ion of Chios F105–7 (Leurini) = FGrH 329 F12–14 ap. Plut. Cim. 5.3, 9.1–6, 16.8–10; then consider Ion of Chios F132 (Leurini) ap. Plut. Cim. 17.1; and see the secondary literature cited in Chapter 2, note 40, above.

4. Thirty-five thousand helots accompany Spartiates to Boeotia: Hdt. 9.10.1, Plut. Arist. 10.8. Cf. Nino Luraghi, “Der Erdbebenaufstand und die Entstehung der messenischen Identität,” in Gab es das griechische Wunder? Griechenland zwischen dem Ende des 6. und der Mitte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., ed. Dietrich Papanfuss and Volker M. Strocka (Mainz: Ph. von Zabern, 2001), 279–301, who underestimates the degree to which the helots of Messenia already thought of themselves as a single people and were inclined to rebellion, but who correctly draws attention to the likely impact on the generation that rebelled in 465/4 of their experience at Plataea in 479. Earthquake and revolt blamed on sacrilege at Taenarum: Thuc. 1.128.1, Critias ap. Lib. Or. 25.63.

5. Messenians and some of the períoıkoı join the rebellion: Plut. Cim. 16.7. See Thuc. 1.101.2.

6. Tegean-Mantineian hostility: Thuc. 5.65.4.

7. Around three thousand Mantineian hoplites: Diod. 12.78.4, Lys. 34.7. Cf., however, Stephen and Hilary Hodkinson, “Mantineia and the Mantinike: Settlement and Society in a Greek Polis,” ABSA 76 (1981): 239–96, and Björn Forsén, “Population and Political Strength of Some Southeastern Arkadian Poleis,” in Further Studies in the Ancient Greek Polis, ed. Pernille Flensted-Jensen (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000), 35–55 (at 36–51), who doubt that the territory of Mantineia was sufficient to enable it to field an army of three thousand hoplites. They may underestimate the contribution of pastoralism to the carrying capacity of the Mantinike. After all, like the rest of Arcadia, it was proverbially “rich in flocks.” I am also inclined to suspect that the poor in Mantineia were systematically trained and deployed as hoplites, which would help explain why so many of them found service abroad as mercenaries. Consider Ath. 4.154d in conjunction with James Roy, “The Economies of Arkadia,” and Catherine Morgan, “Cultural Subzones in Early Iron Age and Archaic Arkadia,” in DAA, 320–81 (esp. 331–32, 340–56), 382–456 (at 431–32). But it is also possible that Lysias and Diodorus took into account Mantineia’s subject allies, as I suggest above.

8. Agesilaus on help from Mantineia: Xen. Hell. 5.2.3. If Agesilaus’ older brother Agis adopted a similar posture, it would explain why the Agiad king Pleistoanax, not Agis, was sent to chastise the Mantineians in 421: Thuc. 5.33.

9. Gratitude for the help provided by Aegina: Thuc. 2.27.2, 4.56.2.

10. Aeginetan forces at Salamis: Hdt. 8.46.1. Prize for valor: 8.93.1, 122. Aeginetan forces at Mycale and Plataea: 8.131, 132.2, 9.28.6, 31.4. Aeginetans man more ships than any city other than Athens: Paus. 2.29.5.

11. Aeginetan troop transports: Hdt. 6.76, 92.1–2.

12. General appeal to allies: Diod. 11.64.2.

13. Geopolitical dynamics of northeastern Peloponnesus; religious, cultural, and economic opposition between Argos and Corinth: Katherine M. Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese: The Transition from Archaic to Classical Politics (Aldershot: Avebury, 1986), 1–66. For the course of the main road as it stretches from Argos to Hysiae and on to Tegea further south, see note 58, below. For the road system in this region as a whole, see Giannēs A. Pikoulas, Tò Hodıko Díktuo kaı` Ámyna: Ápo tḕn Kórıntho stò Árgos kaì tḕn Arkadía (Athens: Ēoros, 1995). For a supplement to the picture provided therein, see Yannis A. Lolos, Land of Sikyon: Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State (Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies, 2011), 93–179.

14. Early archaic Corinthian alliance with Lacedaemon: consider Paus. 4.11.1, 8, in light of W. G. Forrest, “Colonisation and the Rise of Delphi,” Historia 6:2 (April 1957): 160–75 (esp. 162, 167–68, 172–73). Later Spartan overthrow of Cypselid tyranny: Plut. Mor. 859c–d. On this, cf., however, Salmon, WC, 67–70, 229–30, who is (I think, unduly) skeptical. Then, consider his discussion of Corinth’s involvement in the Peloponnesian League: ibid. 240–52.

15. Corinthian-Argive rivalry: Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese, 67–103, and Cinzia S. Bearzot, “Argo nel V secolo: Ambizioni egemoniche, crisi interne, condizionamenti esterni,” in Argo: Una Demcrazia diversa, ed. Cinzia S. Bearzot and Franca Landucci Gattinoni (Milan: Vita e pensiero, 2006), 105–46 (esp. 106–22).

16. Aggressiveness of Corinth vis-à-vis Cleonae: Plut. Cim. 17.2 with Lewis, OFPW, 71–78, reprinted in Lewis, SPGNEH, 9–21; and Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese, 67–85. Main thoroughfare and more difficult road: note 58, below; Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese, 1–18; and Pikoulas, Tò Hodıkò Díktyo kaì Ámyna, 31–74. Cleonae presides over the Nemean Games: Pind. Nem. 4.17, 10.42, with Malcolm F. McGregor, “Cleisthenes of Sicyon and the Panhellenic Festivals,” TAPhA 72 (1941): 266–87 (at 277–78). Corinthians usurp presidency: Hyp. Schol. Pind. Nem., in Scholia vetera in Pindari carmina, ed. A. B. Drachmann (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964), III 3, 5. See Catherine Morgan, “Debating Patronage: The Cases of Argos and Corinth,” in Pindar’s Poetry, Patrons, and Festivals: From Archaic Greece to the Roman Empire, ed. Simon Hornblower and Catherine Morgan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 213–63 (esp. 257–61).

17. Makeup of Corinthian alliance: consider Thuc. 1.105–6, 108.5, 111.2, 114.1, 115.1; Plut. Per. 19.2; Diod. 11.79.3 in light of Thuc.1.27.2–28.1, 5.53, and see SEG XXXI 369 with A. James Holladay, “Sparta’s Role in the First Peloponnesian War,” JHS 97 (1977): 54–63 (esp. 57–59 with n. 24), reprinted in Hollady, AFC, 105–17 (esp. 109–12 with n. 24); Lewis, OFPW, 71–78 (esp. 73–76 with n. 26), reprinted in Lewis, SPGNEH, 9–21 (esp. 12–17 with n. 26); Audrey Griffin, Sikyon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 62; and Lolos, Land of Sikyon, 65–66. Main road: Adshead, Politics of the Archaic Peloponnese, 1–18, and the material cited in note 58, below. Cities once in Argive orbit: Chapter 3, note 28, above. Participants in the Hellenic League: Chapter 3, note 32, above. Surviving Tirynthians flee to Epidaurus and Hermione, then settle at Halieis: consider Strabo 8.6.11 in light of the material cited in note 62, below.

18. Cleonae’s alliance with Argos against Mycenae in 465/4: Strabo 8.6.19, Diod. 11.65.2–3, Paus. 1.29.7.

19. Seizure of Perachora: Nicholas G. L. Hammond, “The Heraeum at Perachora and Corinthian Encroachment,” ABSA 49 (1954): 93–102, and Ronald P. Legon, Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), 59–70. Megarians, with Argive help, defeat Corinthians in late archaic period: consider Paus. 6.19.12–14 in light of Alastair H. Jackson, “Argos’ Victory over Corinth,” ZPE 132 (2000): 295–311. Renewed Corinthian pressure on Megara before 464: Plut. Cim. 17.2, Thuc. 1.103.4. At a less serious level, there may have been tension all along: Plut. Mor. 295b–c. For an overview, see IACP no. 225.

20. Pausanias’ pledge to the Plataeans: Thuc. 2.71.2–4.

21. Arimnestus or Aeimnestus commands Plataeans at Marathon and Plataea: Paus. 9.4.1–2. Scouts out Pantassa ridge with Aristeides: Plut. Arist. 11.5–8. Plataean bearing this name present with the Spartans at the battle of Plataea: Hdt. 9.72.2. Brings down Mardonius: 9.64.2. It is, of course, conceivable that in 479 there were two men at the battle who bore the pertinent name—the one, a Spartiate; and the other, a Plataean—that they shared a name because they were hereditary guest-friends and that it was the Spartiate who killed Mardonius, as Gabriel Herman, “Epimenides and the Question of Omissions in Thucydides,” CQ n.s. 39:1 (1989): 83–93 (at 92–93), suggests. But with William of Ockham I think it imprudent to multiply entities.

22. Arimnestus or Aeimnestus próxenos of the Lacedaemonians at Plataea: Thuc. 3.52.4 with George L. Huxley, “Two Notes on Herodotos,” GRBS 4:1 (1963): 5–8 (at 5–7). One-third of the adult male Plataeans march to Lacedaemon’s defense: Thuc. 3.54.8. Arimnestus or Aeimnestus and the three hundred killed in Messenia: Hdt. 9.64.2.

23. Help from Athens: Thuc. 1.102.1–2; Xen. Hell. 6.5.33; Diod. 11.64.2; Plut. Cim. 16.8–10; Paus. 1.29.8, 4.24.5–6; Just. Epit. 3.6.2.

24. Pericleidas’ request: Ion of Chios F107 (Leurini) = FGrH 392 F14 ap. Plut. Cim. 16.8 with Ar. Lys. 1137–44. His status and his son’s name: Thuc. 4.119.2 with Ste. Croix, OPW, 182, n. 52.

25. Ephialtes’ argument against aiding Lacedaemon: Plut. Cim. 16.9. Unimpeachable honesty: Dem. 23.205; Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.1; Plut. Cim. 10.8; Ael. VH 2.43, 11.9, 13.39. Reason to suppose longtime ally of Themistocles: Chapter 3, note 40, above.

26. Cimon argues for aiding Lacedaemon: Ion of Chios F107 (Leurini) = FGrH 392 F14 ap. Plut. Cim. 16.9–10. Leads four thousand hoplites to Lacedaemon: Ar. Lys. 1143–44. Proxenía of Lacedaemon hereditary within the family of Callias: Xen. Hell. 6.3.4. Ion of Chios as friend and admirer of Cimon: Chapter 2, note 40, above.

27. Xerxes has bridges built to span the Strymon at Ennea Hodoi: Hdt. 7.24, 114.1. Extensive remains of ancient bridge, discovered by Dimitrios Lazaridis when he excavated Amphipolis, dates back to archaic period: Y. Maniatis et al., “Radiocarbon Dating of the Amphipolis Bridge in Northern Greece, Maintained and Functioned for 2500 Years,” Radiocarbon 52:1 (2010): 41–63. Histiaeus’ fort: Hdt. 5.11.2, 23–24. Athens and allies send colony: Thuc. 1.100.3, 4.102.2. For the likely location of the settlement established at this time at Ennea Hodoi, see W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 6. Drabeskos,” in Pritchett, Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 94–122 (at 102–5).

28. Massacre at Drabeskos near the gold mines in the valley of Daton: consider Hdt. 9.75; Thuc. 1.100.3 (where, against the judgment of Gomme, HCT, I 296–97, and ATL, III 106–10, 258–59, I follow the textual reading of Lorenzo Valla, recently defended by Hornblower, CT, I 155–56); Diod. 11.70.5, 12.68.2; and Paus. 1.29.4–5 in light of Strabo 7 F33–36; and, for the location, see Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 6. Drabeskos,” 102–21. To calculate the date of the disaster (465/4), one need only compare Thuc. 4.100.2–102.4 with Diod. 12.32.1 and 3 and Schol. Aesch. 2.31. The scholiast appears to have named Lysikrates as the archon in the year when the colony was destroyed where he should have mentioned Lysitheos, who was archon in 465/4: see ATL, III 176, n. 57, 179–80. Cf., however, Ernst Badian, “Toward a Chronology of the Pentecontaetia down to the Renewal of the Peace of Callias,” EMC 32 n.s. 7:3 (1988): 289–320 (at 298–300), reprinted (with added material concerning the location of Drabeskos) in Badian, FPP, 73–107 (at 81–86), who thinks the scholiast correct, with Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 6. Drabeskos,” 100–102. Manuscripts differ as to whether Isoc. 8.86 refers to a loss of ten thousand hoplites in the Deceleian War or to such a loss at Daton. Aristotle’s observation: Arist. Ath. Pol. 26.1 with Rhodes, CAAP, 326–28. Commemoration of the dead: Paus. 1.29.4–5 with IG I³ 1144 and 1146, on which see Donald W. Bradeen, “The Casualty List of 464 B.C.,” Hesperia 36:3 (July–September 1967): 321–28, and Pritchett, GSAW, IV 178–80. Institution of the practice of civic burial as an annual event: Paus. 1.29.4 as interpreted by Felix Jacoby, “Patrios Nomos: State Burial in Athens and the Public Cemetery at the Kerameikos,” JHS 64 (1944): 37–66, reprinted in Jacoby, Abhandlungen zur griechischen Geschischtschreibung, ed. Herbert Bloch (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1956), 260–315. In this connection, see Polly Low, “Commemoration of the War Dead in Classical Athens: Remembering Defeat and Victory,” in War, Democracy and Culture in Classical Athens, ed. David M. Pritchard (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 341–58, and Nathan T. Arrington, Ashes, Images, and Memories: The Presence of the War Dead in Fifth-Century Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). The word muríos—literally “ten thousand”—can be and often is shorthand for a countless body of men: W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Campaign of Tanagra,” in Pritchett, Greek Archives, Cults, and Topography (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996), 149–72 (at 154–55).

29. See Nep. Cim. 2.2, where, in suggesting that Cimon founded Amphipolis, Nepos is presumably referring to the earlier colony established at Ennea Hodoi not long before 465/4.

30. Cimon active at this time in the Thracian Chersonnesus, at Thasos, and on the continent nearby: Plut. Cim. 14.1–2.

31. Envy directed at Cimon: Nep. Cim. 3.1. Miltiades and Themistocles as object of envy: Rahe, PC, Chapters 5 and 8. See also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F6.1. Cultural hegemony of Homer: Pl. Resp. 10.606e. Cf. Hdt. 2.53 with Hes. Theog. 108–15, and see Hdt. 1.131. See also Xenophanes Vorsokr.⁶ 21 B14–16 and Arist. Pol. 1252b24–27.

32. Scurrilous talk about Cimon: Eupolis F221 (PCG) ap. Plut. Cim. 15.3–4. Sexually voracious: 4.6–9. Political role played by Elpinike: 14.5, Per. 10.5. Note Ath. 13.589e–f.

33. Charge against Cimon: Plut. Cim. 14.3. Alexander as Athens’ benefactor and próxenos: Chapter 2, note 16, above. Seizure of Strymon basin: consider Strabo 7 F11 in light of Hdt. 8.121.2 and [Dem.] 12.20–21 (which should be read with 23.200), and see Nicholas G. L. Hammond and Guy T. Griffith, A History of Macedonia II: 550–336 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 98–104. Resources in Strymon basin: Chapter 1, note 44, above.

34. Importance of Pericles’ background: Thomas R. Martin, Pericles: A Biography in Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 1–98. Significance of Pericles’ service as chorēgós for Aeschylus’ Persians: Chapter 2, note 20, above, with Samons, PCH, 66–68. Pericles’ prosecution of Cimon: Arist. Ath. Pol. 27.1; Plut. Cim. 14.3–5, Per. 10.6, with Rhodes, CAAP, 335–36, and Edwin M. Carawan, “Eisangelia and Euthyna: The Trials of Miltiades, Themistocles, and Cimon,” GRBS 28:2 (Summer 1987): 167–208 (esp. 190–91, 201–5). Alignment with Ephialtes: cf. Fornara/Samons, ACP, 25–28, who treat the ancient sources with a measure of skepticism that seems to me unjustified, with Podlecki, PHC, 46–54. On Pericles’ caution in these circumstances, see Kagan, Outbreak, 62–67.

35. Cimon’s defense and acquittal: Plut. Cim. 14.4, 15.1. Cf. Dem. 23.205, which is sometimes taken as evidence that Cimon was on this occasion fined: see, for example, Antony E. Raubitschek, “Theophrastos on Ostracism,” CM 19 (1958): 73–109 (at 91, n. 7), reprinted in Raubitschek, SH, 81–107 (at 94, n. 7).

36. First, Dipaea; then, a victory over the Messenians at “the isthmus” or, if the passage requires emendation, as some suppose, “at Ithome”: Hdt. 9.33–35. Second Lacedaemonian request for Athenian help: Plut. Cim. 17.3. The fact that Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, and Pausanias mention only the Athenian expedition against Ithome reflects the abbreviated and narrowly focused character of their reports and does not tell against Plutarch’s more elaborate account. Moreover, as George A. Papantoniou, “One or Two?” AJPh 72:2 (1951): 176–81, points out, the testimony of Ion of Chios, Aristophanes, and Critias, which Plutarch cites, refers to a time when Lacedaemon’s very existence was at stake and not to the mopping-up operation later attempted at Ithome. Thucydides, Diodorus, and Pausanias are interested chiefly in the Lacedaemonians’ failure to deliver on their promise to the Thasians and on Athens’ ultimate breach with Sparta, which is why they focus narrowly on the earthquake and the expedition to Ithome and ignore the first of the two expeditions that Cimon led in support of Lacedaemon. See also Nicholas G. L. Hammond, “Studies in Greek Chronology of the Sixth and Fifth Centuries B.C.,” Historia 4:4 (1955): 371–411 (at 376–79), and note Badian, “Toward a Chronology of the Pentecontaetia down to the Renewal of the Peace of Callias,” 304–6, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 89–92. For a different view of Cimon’s whereabouts after the defeat of the Thasian fleet and the investment of Thasos, see Victor Parker, “The Chronology of the Pentecontaetia from 465 to 456,” Athenaeum 81 (1993): 129–47 (at 131–33), who reads more into Plutarch’s use of the verb exepoliórkēse at Cim. 14.2 than is required.

37. Guerrilla war: Diod. 11.64.1.

38. The aspís and the phalanx: Rahe, SR, Chapter 3, where I cite the extensive secondary literature.

39. Spartans seek and receive Athenian help in siege of Ithome: Thuc. 1.102.1–2. Specialists—“select men”—sent: Paus. 1.29.8.

40. Artaxerxes’ elevation and consolidation of power: Ctesias F13.33–F14.35; Diod. 11.69, 71.1–2; Plut. Them. 29.4–5, 31.3–5, Art. 4.1, Mor. 173d–e; Joseph. AJ 11.185 with Briant, CA, 569–73. Callias’ embassy: Hdt. 7.151. The fact that the Argives were in Susa at the same time, asking whether the close friendship that they had established with Xerxes still remained firm (7.151 with Matt Waters, “Earth, Water, and Friendship with the King: Argos and Persia in the Mid-Fifth Century,” in Extraction and Control: Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, ed. Michael Kozuh [Chicago: Oriental Institute, 2014], 331–36), strongly suggests that Callias’ visit took place in the first year after Artaxerxes came to power, as diplomatic propriety will have dictated: cf. Fornara/Samons, ACP, 174–75, with Peter Green, “Commentary,” in DS, 140–41, n. 273. Persian court and customary gifts: Ath. 6.229f.

41. Evidence Artaxerxes’ policy at odds with that of Xerxes: Kamyar Abdi, “The Passing of the Throne from Xerxes to Artaxerxes I, or How an Archaeological Observation Can Be a Potential Contribution to Achaemenid Historiography,” in The World of Achaemenid Persia: History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Curtis and St. John Simpson (London: I. B. Tauris, 2010), 275–84. Callias fined: Dem. 19.273–75. I agree with Derek J. Mosley, “Callias’ Fine,” Mnemosyne, 4th ser. 26:1 (1973): 57–58, on the timing of and occasion for the imposition of a fine on Callias but not with regard to the date of the original agreement with Persia.

42. Surrender of Thasos: Thuc. 1.101.3. Spartan offer to Thasos: 1.101.1–2. I see no reason to dismiss Thucydides’ testimony in this regard. But there are those who think him—wrongly, in my opinion—an Athenian partisan apt to lie for the purpose of making his compatriots look good, and at least some of them think the notion that Lacedaemon was ready to side with Thasos implausible: see Chapter 3, note 15, above. Cf. Kagan, Outbreak, 61–62, and Ste. Croix, OPW, 178–80, who make neither error but do fail to properly consider when the news about Sparta’s offer is likely to have come to light.

43. Ephialtic reform: consider Arist. Ath. Pol. 3.6, 8.4, 25, 35.2, 41.2, 43.4, 45.2–3, 47.1, 48.2–5, 49.5, 54.2, 55.2–4, Pol. 1274a7–8; Philochoros FGrH 326 F64; Plut. Sol. 19.2, Cim. 15.2–3, Per. 9.5, 10.7–8, Mor. 805d, 812d, in light of Rhodes, CAAP, 311–22; Martin Ostwald, From Popular Sovereignty to the Sovereignty of Law (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 3–83, 179–81, “The Reform of the State by Cleisthenes,” in CAH IV² 303–46 (esp. 329–32), and “The Areopagus in the Athēnaíōn Polıteía,” in Aristote et Athènes / Aristoteles and Athens, ed. Marcel Piérart (Paris: de Boccard, 1993), 139–53; Carawan, “Eisangelia and Euthyna,” 167–208; George L. Cawkwell, “NOMOPHYLAKIA and the Areopagus,” JHS 108 (1988): 1–12, reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 114–33; Robert W. Wallace, The Areopagos Council, to 307 B.C. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), passim (esp. 70–93); Tracey E. Rihll, “Democracy Denied: Why Ephialtes Attacked the Areiopagus,” JHS 115 (1995): 87–98, which should be read in conjunction with Lindsay G. H. Hall, “Ephialtes, the Areopagus and the Thirty,” CQ n.s. 40:2 (1990): 319–28; and Kurt A. Raaflaub, “The Breakthrough of Dēmokratia in Mid-Fifth-Century Athens,” in Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, and Robert W. Wallace (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 105–54. Note Xenophon’s playful allusion confirming what the later sources have to say concerning the role played by Pericles: Mem. 3.5.19–21. For a far more thorough survey of the evidence, the secondary literature, and the issues in dispute than is appropriate here, see Podlecki, PHC, 48–53.

44. Spartans nervous, fear Athenian defection to the Messenians, send Cimon and his soldiers home: Thuc. 1.102.3; Diod. 11.64.2; Plut Cim. 17.3; Paus. 1.29.8–9, 4.24.6–7; Just. Epit. 3.6.3. I see no reason to question Thucydides’ testimony—which, in context, makes perfect sense, as I have tried to show above—and I find it very hard to believe that, at a time when they were themselves facing a helot rebellion, the Spartans managed to get worked up about the Ephialtic reform at Athens. Cf. John R. Cole, “Cimon’s Dismissal, Ephialtes’ Revolution and the Peloponnesian Wars,” GRBS 15:4 (1974): 369–85; Rhodes, CAAP, 311; Fornara/Samons, ACP, 127–29; and Samons, PCH, 78–81, with Philip Deane, Thucydides’ Dates, 465–431 B.C. (Don Mills, Ontario: Longman Canada, 1972), 18–22. Critias’ judgment of Cimon: Critias B52 (D–K) ap. Plut. Cim. 16.9. Cf. Lendon, SoW, esp. 51–55, who rejects Thucydides’ testimony that the Lacedaemonians had offered help to Thasos and who traces the breach between Sparta and Athens that took place at this time solely to Athenian pique.

45. Cimon tries, fails to overturn Ephialtic reform: Plut. Cim. 15.3, 17.3. Note Per. 9.5.

46. Diplomatic revolution: Thuc. 1.102.4; Paus. 1.29.8–9, 4.24.7. Note Thuc. 2.22.3. Cimon ostracized: Pl. Grg. 516d, Nep. Cim. 3.1. Occasion for ostracism: Plut. Cim. 15.3, 17.3, Per. 9.5.

47. Alcibiades son of Cleinias resigns proxenía: Thuc. 5.43.2, 6.89.2. Ostracism: Lys. 14.39, Andoc. 4.34 with Eugene Vanderpool, “The Ostracism of the Elder Alkibiades,” Hesperia 21:1 (January–March 1952): 1–8, and Stefan Brenne, Ostrakismos und Prominenz in Athen: Attische Bürger des 5. Jhs. v. Chr. auf den Ostraka (Vienna: A. Holzhausens, 2001), 95–97.

48. Strategic rivalry: Paul A. Rahe, “Athens and Sparta,” in Great Strategic Rivalries: From the Classical World to the Cold War, ed. James Lacey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 52–78. See also Karl Walling, “Thucydides on Policy, Strategy, and War Termination,” Naval War College Review 66:4 (Autumn 2013): 47–85.

49. Athens’ control of the passes over the Geraneia between Megara and Corinth was a considerable deterrent, as Thucydides (4.72.1) implies, but it was not as great a constraint as some think: cf. Ste. Croix, OPW, 190–96, with Holladay, “Sparta’s Role in the First Peloponnesian War,” 54–63, reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 105–17, and Lewis, OFPW, 71–78, reprinted in Lewis, SPGNEH, 9–21; then, cf. Salmon, WC, 420–21, with A. James Holladay, “Sparta and the First Peloponnesian War,” JHS 105 (1985): 161–62, reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 119–22. Sparta’s security environment nearer home the chief constraint: Fornara/Samons, ACP, 129–35.

50. Euripides on Laconia: F1083 (Nauck) ap. Strabo 8.5.6. Laconia as Peloponnesian acropolis: Diod. 14.82.4.

51. Messenia: Euripides F1083 (Nauck) ap. Strabo 8.5.6.

52. Proverb: Strabo 8.6.20. Approaching and rounding Malea difficult and dangerous: Morton, RPEAGS, 81–85, 137–42.

53. Corinthian leader on Spartan weakness nearer home: Xen. Hell. 4.2.11–12.

54. Athenian descent on Halieis: Thuc. 1.105.1, Diod. 11.78.2. If Dobree and Wyse are correct in suggesting Halıeûsın as an emendation to replace Eleusînı at Is. 5.42—as, I think, they are—the general in charge on this occasion will have been Dikaiogenes son of Menexenos. That Halieis lay in the territory of Hermione is affirmed by Ephorus FGrH 70 F56 ap. Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Halıeîs and suggested by Strabo 8.6.12 and makes excellent geographical sense. For the strategic importance of Halieis and a highly intelligent attempt to sort out its complex history with an eye to the geopolitics of the region wherein it lies, see Michael H. Jameson, Curtis N. Runnels, and Tjeerd H. van Andel, A Greek Countryside: The Southern Argolid from Prehistory to the Present Day (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 57–85 (esp. 63–66, 69–85). Note also IACP no. 349. For a more detailed discussion of what can be gleaned from the literary evidence, the inscriptions, and the archaeology concerning Halieis as such, see Michael H. Jameson, “Excavations at Halieis, History of the Site, and Testimonia,” forthcoming in Christina F. Dengate, James A. Dengate, Michael H. Jameson, David Reese, and Charles K. Williams II, The Excavations at Halieis III:1: The Acropolis and Industrial Terrace, which James Dengate kindly allowed me to see. The fortifications—both those of the archaic period and those of the classical period—are testimony to the town’s strategic significance: see Marian H. McAllister, The Excavations at Ancient Halieis I: The Fortifications and Adjacent Structures (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), 1–84, and Michael H. Jameson, “Submerged Remains of the Town and Its Immediate Vicinity,” in ibid. 85–97. In 430 and in 425, during the Archidamian War, the Athenians attacked Halieis once more: Thuc. 2.56.5, 4.45.2. In the aftermath, Halieis accepted an Athenian garrison: IG I³ 75, SEG X 80, XIV 8.

55. Duration of struggle for Tiryns: Hdt. 6.83. Ultimate Argive victory and destruction of Tiryns: Paus. 2.25.8, 5.23.3, 8.27.1.

56. If I make no mention of the fourth-century Argive inscription, posted by a religious confraternity, prescribing that a festival be celebrated on the seventeenth day of each month to commemorate an occasion in the past when Apollo aided the Argives in fending off a night attack led by a certain Pleistarchus, it is because it is now clear that the Pleistarchus in question was not the son of Leonidas, but was, instead, the brother of the Macedonian king Cassander: cf. R. Herzog, “Auf den Spuren der Telesilla,” Philologus 71 (1912): 1–23 (esp. 6, 20–21, and pl. 1), with Wilhelm Vollgraff, Le Sanctuaire d’Apollon pythéen à Argos (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, 1956), 79–84. Then, cf. E. David Francis and Michael Vickers, “Argive Oenoe,” AC 54 (1985): 105–15 (at 109–10), with Marcel Piérart, “Note sur l’alliance entre Athènes et Argos au cours de la première guerre du Péloponnèse: À propos de Thucydide I 107–108,” MH 44 (1987): 175–80.

57. Battle of Oenoe: Paus. 1.15.1, 10.10.3–4. Location: Paus. 2.25.1–3, 8.6.4–6 with W. Kendrick Pritchett, “The Routes over the Prinos and Klimax Passes,” in SAGT, III 1–53 (esp. 2–12, 31–51)—as corrected in W. Kendrick Pritchett, “The ‘Disputed’ Sites of J. E. and F. E. Winter,” in SAGT, VII 205–26 (at 222–26). In this connection, note Ludwig Ross, Reisen und Reiserouten durch Griechenland (Berlin: Reimer, 1841), 129, and see Giannēs A. Pikoulas, “Klīmax (Paus. viii 6,4),” Horos 8–9 (1990–91): 279–83, reprinted in Giannēs A. Pikoulas, Arkadía: Sullogē meletōn (Athens: Ēoros, 2002), 349–57, as well as Pikoulas, Tò Hodıkò Díktuo kaı` Ámyna, 104–11, 118–25, 288–97, and Yanis (Giannēs) A. Pikoulas, “The Road-Network of Arkadia,” in DAA, 248–319 (esp. 258–61, 272, 274–80). The argument in favor of emending Pausanias’ text and replacing Oeonoe with Orneai later articulated by Pritchett does not, in my opinion, survive the application of Ockham’s razor: cf., however, W. Kendrick Pritchett, “The Alleged Battle of Oinoa,” in Pritchett, Essays in Greek History (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1994), 1–25.

58. Wagon road stretching from Argos to Lerna, then Hysiae, and on to Tegea, Caryae, and Lacedaemon: Paus. 2.24.5–7, 8.6.4, 54.5–7 with W. Kendrick Pritchett, “The Road from Argos to Hysiai via Kenchreai,” and “The Road from Tegea to Hysiai,” in SAGT, III 54–101, and “The Tegea-Hysiai Roads,” in SAGT, VI 107–11; and Giannēs A. Pikoulas, Tò Hodıkò Díktuo tḕs Lakōnýkēs (Athens: Ēoros, 2012), 54–97. For overviews, in which the significance of transport by carts is highlighted, see Pritchett, “Ancient Greek Roads,” in SAGT, III 143–96; Yannis (Giannēs) A. Pikoulas, “Traveling by Land in Ancient Greece,” in Travel, Geography and Culture in Ancient Greece, Egypt, and the Near East, ed. Colin E. P. Adams and James Roy (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007), 78–87; and Lolos, Land of Sikyon, 93–98, 176–79. Note also Yannis A. Lolos, “Greek Roads: A Commentary on the Ancient Terms,” Glotta 79:1–4 (2003): 137–74. Road through Oenoe difficult and inconvenient but quite plausible as a route when the road through Tegea closed: cf. Antony Andrewes, “Could There Have Been a Battle at Oinoe?” in Essays in Honour of C. E. Stevens on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Barbara M. Levick (Farnborough, Hants.: Gregg International, 1975), 9–15 (at 11–13), with Johan Henrik Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press, 1997), 30–33.

59. Cf. Lilian H. Jeffery, “The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile: A Problem in Greek Art and History,” ABSA 60 (1965): 41–57, who cites the earlier scholarship and has much of value to say concerning the battle and its larger context, with Meiggs, AE, 95–97, 469–72; Jan Bollansée, “The Battle of Oinoe in the Stoa Poikile: A Fake Jewel in the Fifth-Century Crown?” AncSoc 22 (1991): 91–126; and Robert D. Luginbill, “The Battle of Oinoe, the Painting in the Stoa Poikile, and Thucydides’ Silence,” Historia 63:3 (July 2014): 278–92, whose dating of Oenoe and whose narratives make better sense. Cf. Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon, 21–37, who—for no good reason—denies that Thucydides’ chronology of the 460s and 450s leaves any time for Oenoe, and Jeremy G. Taylor, “Oinoe and the Painted Stoa: Ancient and Modern Misunderstandings?” AJPh 119:2 (Summer 1998): 223–43, who suggests that there were two battles of the same name that took place in different regions at different times.

60. Monuments at Argos and at Delphi, campaign of construction, Argive games: Paus. 2.20.5, 10.10.3–4 with Pierre Amandry, “Sur les Concours argiens,” Études Argiennes, BCH Supp. 6:1 (1980): 211–53, and “Hydries argiennes,” in Essays in Honor of Dietrich von Bothmer, ed. Andrew J. Clark, Jasper Gaunt, and Benedicte Gilman (Amsterdam: Allard Pierson, 2002), 29–32, as well as with Anne Pariente, “Le Monument argien des ‘Sept contre Thèbes,’” and Jacques des Courtils, “L’Architecture et l’histoire d’Argos dans la première moitié du cinquième siècle av. J.-C.,” in Polydipsion Argos: Argos de la fin des palais mycéniens à la constitution de l’État classique, ed. Marcel Piérart (Athens: École française d’Athènes, 1992), 195–225, 241–51, and Morgan, “Debating Patronage,” 249–57, 261–63. For an overview, see Bearzot, “Argo nel V secolo,” 105–46 (esp. 118–22). I doubt very much whether the conquest of Mycenae and Tiryns gave rise at this time to an Argive appropriation of their mythology, as Jonathan M. Hall, “How Argive Was the ‘Argive’ Heraion? The Political and Cultic Geography of the Argive Plain, 900–400 B.C.,” AJA 99:4 (October 1995): 577–613, and Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 57–110, and Barbara Kowalzig, Singing for the Gods: Performances of Myth and Ritual in Archaic and Classical Greece (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 161–78, contend. The sharp contrast that they draw between Argos, on the one hand, and Mycenae and Tiryns, on the other, has little in the way of foundation. Linguistically, if we are to judge by the inscriptions, the three communities in the Argeia were indistinguishable, and there is excellent reason to suppose that Argos was preeminent from very early on and that any cultural appropriation that took place within the Argeia took place in the archaic period: see Marcel Piérart, “Argos des origines au synœcisme du VIIIe siècle avant J.-C.,” in Argo: Una Democrazia diversa, 3–26, and Matt Kõiv, “Cults, Myths and State Formation in Archaic Argos,” in When Gods Spoke: Researches and Reflections on Religious Phenomena and Artefacts, ed. Peeter Espak, Märt Läänemets, and Vladimir Sazonov (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2015), 125–64 (esp. 126–35, 140–55).

61. As Pritchett, “The Routes over the Prinos and Klimax Passes,” 49–51, points out, little weight can be assigned arguments from the silence of our sources regarding incidents of modest importance in a period about which these sources tell us next to nothing.

62. Spartiate Aneristus’ seizure of Halieis, Tirynthians find refuge there: Hdt. 7.137.2 (where we are told that the Halieis in question was the one that the Tirynthians settled) with Ephorus FGrH 70 F56 ap. Stephanus of Byzantium s.v. Halıeîs and Strabo 8.6.11, which should be read in accord with the emendations suggested by Wolfgang Aly and Francesco Sbordone, “Zum neuen Strabon Text,” PP 5 (1950): 228–63 (at 245–46), and by Raoul Baladié in the apparatus criticus of Strabon, Géographie Tome V (Livre VIII), ed. Raoul Baladié (Paris: Budé, 1978), 167–68. The numismatic evidence and the archaeological excavations conducted by Michael H. Jameson and others confirm the subsequent Tirynthian presence: note Ioannis N. Svoronos, “Hermíonılos: Halíeıs Hoı Ek Tırúnthos Kaì Tà Nomísmata Aútōn,” Journal international d’archéologie numismatique 10 (1907): 5–34, and see Michael H. Jameson, “A Treasury of Athena in the Argolid (IG, 544),” in Phoros: Tribute to Benjamin Dean Merritt, ed. Donald W. Bradeen and Malcolm F. McGregor (Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1974), 67–75; Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel, A Greek Countryside, 77; James A. Dengate, “The Mint,” and “The Coins: Provenances,” in McAllister, The Excavations at Ancient Halieis I: The Fortifications and Adjacent Structures, 98–140, 154–57; and Jameson, “Excavations at Halieis, History of the Site, and Testimonia.”

63. Timing of Aneristus’ operation: cf. Jameson, Runnels, and van Andel, A Greek Countryside, 77, and Jameson, “Excavations at Halieis, History of the Site, and Testimonia,” where the incident is dated to the period of the Thirty Years’ Peace or the very beginning of the Peloponnesian War, with Meiggs, AE, 96–97, who prefers the earlier date, as do I.

64. Hermione (IACP no. 350) later aligned with Athens: IG I³ 31. Troezen also: Thuc. 1.115.2, Andoc. 3.3. Note Cleon’s keen interest in the latter in 425: Thuc. 4.21.3. Neither mentioned among the cities defending Halieis in 459 against the Athenian assault: Chapter 5, note 6, below. There is no other context in which the operation mounted by Aneristus makes any sense. By 459, in any case, Halieis was in the hands of the Peloponnesians, and the Tirynthian refugees were presumably in residence there by that time.

Chapter 5. War in Two Theaters

Epigraph: Aesch. Eum. 976–87.

1. Megara and Salamis: Ronald P. Legon, Megara: The Political History of a Greek City-State to 336 B.C. (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981), 122–40. Border dispute with Athens: Thuc. 1.139.2, Plut. Per. 30.2 with Legon, Megara, 202–3.

2. Athens’ alliance with Megara: Thuc. 1.103.4, Diod. 11.79.1–2, read in light of Plut. Cim. 17.1–2.

3. Geraneia passes can be closed: Thuc. 4.72.1 read in light of 1.107.3. For a description of these passes, see Strabo 9.1.4 and Nicholas G. L. Hammond, “The Main Road from Boeotia to the Peloponnese through the Northern Megarid,” ABSA 49 (1954): 103–122, reprinted as “The Main Road from Boeotia to the Peloponnese,” in Hammond, Studies in Greek History: A Companion Volume to a History of Greece to 322 B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 417–46, with James Wiseman, The Land of the Ancient Corinthians (Göteborg: P. Åström, 1978), 17–27; Legon, Megara, 21–22, 33–37; and Arthur Muller, “Megarika XII: Mégare et son territoire: Routes et rues,” BCH 108:1 (1984): 249–56.

4. Athens’ alliance with Megara, building of Long Walls: Thuc. 1.103.4 with Legon, Megara, 181–90. Nisaea eight furlongs from Megara: Thuc. 4.66.3. Cf. Strabo 9.1.4. For its likely location, see Gomme, HCT, II 334–36, and Legon, Megara, 27–32. Note Hornblower, CT, I 105–6.

5. Violent hatred: Thuc. 1.103.4.

6. Battle at Halieis: Thuc. 1.105.1, Diod. 11.78.2. Sicyonians at Halieis as well: SEG XXXI 369 with A. James Holladay, ”Sparta’s Role in the First Peloponnesian War,” JHS 97 (1977): 54–63 (at 57–59 with n. 24), reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 105–17 (at 109–12 with n. 24); Lewis, OFPW, 71–78 (at 73–76 with n. 26), reprinted in Lewis, SPGNEH, 9–21 (at 12–17 with n. 26); and Audrey Griffin, Sikyon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 62. The same coalition was active against Athens in 446: Thuc. 1.114.1.

7. Naval battles off Cecryphalia and Aegina, Leocrates and the siege of Aegina: Thuc. 1.105.1–2, Lys. 2.48, Diod. 11.78.2–4. For a confused account, see Diod. 11.70.2–3. For the date, see David M. Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” in CAH V² 500–501. Cf. Philip Deane, Thucydides’ Dates, 465–431 B.C. (Don Mills, Ontario: Longman Canada, 1972), 31–45. Leocrates a general at Plataea: Plut. Arist. 20.1. Cf. Just. Epit. 3.6.6, who attributes to the Athenians a loss at sea against the Peloponnesians at about this time.

8. Artaxerxes’ consolidation of power and military buildup: Diod. 11.71.1–2; Plut. Them. 29.4–5, 31.3–5; Joseph. AJ 11.185 with Briant, CA, 569–73. Note Plut. Mor. 173d–e, 565a.

9. Cypriot expedition and raids on Phoenicia: Thuc. 1.104.2 with IG I³ 1147 = ML no. 33 = O&R no. 109.

10. Libyan Inaros son of Psammetichus: Thuc. 1.104.1 with Jan Krzysztof Winnicki, “Der libysche Stamm der Bakaler im pharaonischen, persischen und ptolemäischen Ägypten,” AncSoc 36 (2006): 135–42. Cf. Michel Chauveau, “Inaros, prince des rebelles,” in Res severa verum gaudium: Festschrift für Karl-Theodor Zauzich, ed. Friedhelm Hoffman and Heinz-Josef Thissen (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 39–46. Rebellion’s initial success: Thuc. 1.104.1, Diod. 11.71.3 with Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BCE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 21–30. The papyrological evidence suggests that the Persians lost control of upper Egypt at some point tolerably soon after 2 January 464 and that they did not regain it for five to six years: Dan’el Kahn, “Inaros’ Rebellion against Artaxerxes I and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt,” CQ n.s. 58:2 (December 2008): 424–40 (at 428–31).

11. Inaros defeats Achaemenes at Papremis, Athens and her allies (notably, including Samos) defeat the satrap’s fleet, take control of the river, and assist in the siege of the White Castle: Hdt. 3.12.4, 15.3, 7.7.1; Thuc. 1.104; ML no. 34 (with 1988 addendum = IG XII 6 I 279) = O&R no. 110; and Aristodemus FGrH 104 F11.3. For a somewhat different account, see Ctesias FGrH 688 F14.36; Diod. 11.71.3–6, 74.1–4, 13.25.2. See Ruzicka, Trouble in the West, 30–31. The fact that a Persian eunuch left a graffito at Wadi Hammamat in upper Egypt dated to the fifth year of Artaxerxes’ reign (16 December 461–16 December 460) says a great deal about the man’s loyalties, but it does not in and of itself demonstrate Persian control: cf. Kahn, “Inaros’ Rebellion against Artaxerxes I and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt,” 428–29.

12. Loss of upper Egypt: Kahn, “Inaros’ Rebellion against Artaxerxes I and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt,” 429–30. The fact that Egypt south of Memphis was under the control of Persia or of Persian sympathizers—Kahn to the contrary notwithstanding—proves nothing about the situation in lower Egypt: cf. ibid. 428–40. Nor does this evidence justify preferring the testimony of Ctesias or even that of Diodorus Siculus to that of Thucydides.

13. Peloponnesian hoplites dispatched to Aegina: Thuc. 1.105.3. Note Andoc. 3.6. Victories achieved by the young and older Athenians commanded by Myronides: Thuc. 1.105.3–106.2, Diod. 11.79.1–4, Lys. 2.48–53, Aristid. Panath. 155. The sterling qualities of Myronides as a general, service in high command at Plataea and elsewhere, see Thuc. 1.108.2–3, 111.1, 4.95.3; Ar. Lys. 801–4, Eccl. 303–6; Diod. 11.81.4–83.4; Plut. Arist. 10.10, 20.1, Per. 16.3, Comp. Per. et Fab. 1.2, Mor. 345c–d; Polyaen. Strat. 1.35.2.

14. Erechtheid casualty list for 459: IG I³ 1147 = ML no. 33 = O&R no. 109. Fragments from another such tribal list for this year survive: SEG XXIV 45. Size of Athens’ population in 480: Hdt. 5.97.2. Note also 8.65.1, Ar. Eccl. 1132–33, Pl. Symp. 175e. To this number, one should perhaps add the four thousand cleruchs settled in 506 at Chalcis on Euboea: Hdt. 5.77.2, 6.100.1. Adult male population likely to have reached sixty thousand or more by 431 (a generation after the debacle in Egypt in 454): Mogens Herman Hansen, “A Note on the Growing Tendency to Underestimate the Population of Classical Athens” and “Athenian Population Losses 431–403 B.C. and the Number of Athenian Citizens in 431 B.C.,” in Hansen, Three Studies in Athenian Demography (Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab: Munksgaard, 1988), 7–28.

15. Cimon and the Long Walls: see Chapter 2, note 50, above.

16. Theban hegemony at an end, Boeotian League no threat: Diod. 11.81.2, Just. Epit. 3.6.10 with Robert J. Buck, A History of Boeotia (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1979), 141–43, and Nancy H. Demand, Thebes in the Fifth Century: Heracles Resurgent (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), 27–31. That the Boeotian League survived in some form seems clear: Moshe Amit, “The Boeotian Confederation during the Pentekontaetia,” RSA 1 (1971): 49–64.

17. Athenians finish the Long Walls: Thuc. 1.108.3. Construction begun: Thuc. 1.107.1, Plut. Per. 13.7–8. Cf. John R. Ellis, “Thucydides I.105–108: The Long Walls and Their Significance,” in Ventures into Greek History, ed. Ian Worthington (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 3–14, with W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 7. Thucydides 1.107–108: Athenian Long Walls,” in Pritchett, Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 122–29, and see David H. Conwell, Connecting a City to the Sea: The History of the Athenian Long Walls (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 1–64, who cites the pertinent secondary literature and argues cogently with regard to the timetable.

18. Themistocles on the Peiraeus: Chapter 2, at note 14, above.

19. Purpose to make Athens an island: Thuc. 1.143.5, [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.14–16 with Conwell, Connecting a City to the Sea, 55–60. Foundations twelve feet thick: William Martin Leake, The Topography of Athens with Some Remarks on Its Antiquities (London: J. Rodwell, 1841), I 417–20.

20. Doris regarded as ancestral homeland: Thuc. 1.107.2, Diod. 11.79.4–6. Tetrapolis: Strabo 9.4.10, 10.4.6. Lacedaemon, Doris, and the Amphictyonic League: Simon Hornblower, “The Religious Dimension to the Peloponnesian War, or, What Thucydides Does Not Tell Us,” HSPh 94 (1992): 169–97, reprinted with added material in Hornblower, Thucydidean Themes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 25–53. Intensity of Lacedaemonian piety: Hdt. 5.63.2, 9.7.1. Note, however, Paus. 3.5.8–9.

21. Duration of helot revolt: Thuc. 1.103.1—confirmed by Ephorus: Diod. 11.64.4. The fact that Archidamus did not lead the expedition to Doris suggests that the reading of all of the Thucydides’ manuscripts should be retained. See also David W. Reece, “The Date of the Fall of Ithome,” JHS 82 (1962): 111–20 with R. A. McNeal, “Historical Methods and Thucydides 1.103.1,” Historia 19:30 (July 1970): 306–25, and Deane, Thucydides’ Dates, 23–30, who show that there are no philological grounds for emending the text. Cf., however, Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 3. Thucydides 1.103: Numeral,” 24–61, who cannot bring himself to believe that at any time in his account of the Pentekontaetia Thucydides departed from strict chronological order. That Thucydides mentioned events in chronological order insofar as this was possible seems clear enough. That he chose not to do so on this particular occasion he makes clear, lest his reader be confused, by expressly indicating as much when he specifies the length of the revolt: Fornara/Samons, ACP, 133–35. His overall purpose is to trace the growth of Athenian power. His discussion of the origins of the helot revolt is a digression made necessary because of its impact on Spartan-Athenian relations. He alludes to the end of the revolt in order to dispose of the matter and return to his main theme. See Deane, Thucydides’ Dates, 18, 22–23; Ron K. Unz, “The Chronology of the Pentekontaetia,” CQ n.s. 36:1 (1986): 68–85 (at 73–76); and Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” 500.

22. Pleistoanax’ guardian Nicomedes leads ten thousand Peloponnesians and fifteen hundred Lacedaemonians to defend Doris: Thuc. 1.107.2. See also Diod. 11.79.4–6, who rightly recognizes in Thucydides’ phrase “the Lacedaemonians and the allies” the standard formula for Sparta’s Peloponnesian alliance; cf. Thuc. 1.108.1 with 3.9.1, 4.119.1, and see Gomme, HCT, I 313–14. Nicomedes’ patronymic disputed: Thuc. 1.107.2, Diod. 11.79.5. Ten thousand Lacedaemonians dispatched in 479 to Plataea: Hdt. 9.10–11. Likely predominance of períoıkoı in Nicomedes’ force: Paul A. Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia: A Regional History, 1300–362 BC (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), 227–28.

23. Available routes: Thuc. 1.107.3 (with 4.72.1). Route from Itea via Amphissa: W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Campaign of Tanagra,” in Pritchett, Greek Archives, Cults, and Topography (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1996), 149–72 (at 159–62). Route from Crisa via Delphi: W. Kendrick Pritchett, “The Hypate-Kallion Route through Central Greece. 5. The Upper Kephisos—Delphi Route,” in ibid. 207–12.

24. Nicomedes in Doris: Thuc. 1.107.2, Diod. 11.79.6.

25. Delphi: Plut. Cim. 17.4. Thucydides’ Spartan informants: 5.26.5.

26. Impact on Lacedaemonians of oracle concerning suppliant at Ithome: Thuc. 1.103.2, Paus. 4.24.7. Later Phocian seizure of Delphi—and reoccupation with Athenian backing: Thuc. 1.112.5. On the struggle taking place in these years for control of the sanctuary, see Gerhard Zeilhofer, Sparta, Delphoi und die Amphiktyonen im 5. Jahrhundert vor Christus (Erlangen: Friedrich-Alexander-Universität, 1959), 36–45. See also Robert C. R. Parker, “Greek States and Greek Oracles,” in CRUX: Essays Presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on His 75th Birthday, ed. Paul Cartledge and F. D. Harvey, HPTh 6:1/2 (1985), 298–326 (esp. 325).

27. Nicomedes shores up the Thebans: Diod. 11.81.2–3, Just. Epit. 3.6.10 with Pl. Menex. 242a–b and Kagan, Outbreak, 85–94. Cf. Robert J. Buck, “The Athenian Domination of Boeotia,” CPh 65:4 (October 1970): 217–27 (at 217–21), and A History of Boeotia, 143–47, and Fornara/Samons, ACP, 135–37, who reject this testimony, with Demand, Thebes in the Fifth Century, 31–35, who suspects that, apart from the order of events, it is apt to be true, and with Johan Henrik Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press, 1997), 75–85, who prefers this testimony to that of Thucydides in all respects.

28. Spartan secretiveness: Thuc. 5.68.2. Tendency to say one thing and do another: Hdt. 9.54–55.

29. Athenian fleet in Corinthian Gulf: Thuc. 1.107.3, as interpreted by T. T. B. Ryder, “Thucydides and Athenian Strategy in the Early 450s: A Consensus of Mistranslations,” G&R 25:2 (October 1978): 121–24. Size of fleet: Diod. 11.80.1.

30. Routes home likely to be obstructed: Thuc. 1.107.3 (with 4.72.1), Diod. 1.80.1–2.

31. Supposed assassination of Ephialtes: cf. Arist. Ath. Pol. 25.4 and Plut. Per. 10.7–8, who claim that Aristodikos of Tanagra was the assassin, with Antiphon 5.68 and Diod. 11.77.6, who deny that the murderer was ever identified or found, and Idomeneus of Lampsacus FGrH 338 F8, who fingered Pericles; then see David Stockton, “The Death of Ephialtes,” CQ n.s. 32:1 (1982): 227–28, who questions whether an assassination even took place. There is certainly something strange about the tales later told—for, as Duane W. Roller, “Who Murdered Ephialtes?” Historia 38:3 (3rd Quarter 1989): 257–66, points out, although we can catalogue the names of a great many Tanagrans, we know of no one at Tanagra or, for that matter, in Boeotia more generally who ever bore the name Aristodikos. On Aeschylus’ testimony and the likelihood that an assassination did take place, see Alan H. Sommerstein, “Sleeping Safe in Our Beds: Stasis, Assassination and the Oresteia,” in Literary Responses to Civil Discord, ed. John H. Molyneux, Nottingham Classical Literature Studies (Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 1993), 1–17. I would regard Sommerstein’s argument as dispositive were it not for what Roller, whose work Sommerstein does not mention, has to report.

32. Tale of Agamemnon, Clythemnestra, Aegisthus, and Orestes: Hom. Od. 1.26–47, 11.385–464, 24.1–204. That Aeschylus favored the Argive alliance is clear, and it is also evident that, in mentioning the Areopagus, he is commenting on the political reform championed by Ephialtes. Precisely where he stands with regard to the latter is, however, disputed: cf. Kenneth J. Dover, “The Political Aspect of Aeschylus’ Eumenides,” JHS 77 (1957): 230–37, with Eric R. Dodds, “Morals and Politics in the Oresteia,” PCPhS 186, n.s. 6 (January 1960): 19–31, reprinted in Dodds, The Ancient Concept of Progress and Other Essays on Greek Literature and Belief (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 45–63; and see Anthony J. Podlecki, The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966), 63–100, and John L. Marr, “Ephialtes the Moderate?” G&R, 2nd ser. 40 (1993): 11–19. Note also, however, Colin W. MacLeod, “Politics and the Oresteia,” JHS 102 (1982): 124–44, reprinted in MacLeod, Collected Essays (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 20–40, and David M. Schaps, “Aeschylus’ Politics and the Theme of the Oresteia,” in Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, ed. Ralph M. Rosen and Joseph Farrell (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1993), 505–15. If we knew more about domestic affairs at Athens in this period and about the arguments deployed for and against Ephialtes’ reform, we would be better able to decipher the drift of Aeschylus’ drama. Cf. Loren J. Samons II, “Aeschylus, the Alkmeonids, and the Reform of the Areopagos,” CJ 94:3 (February–March 1999): 221–33, who may be right in arguing that the absolution of Orestes from pollution bears on the plight of Aeschylus’ onetime chorēgós Pericles, whose mother belonged to a clan once considered accursed.

33. Athena’s plea, choral prayer: Aesch. Eum. 858–66, 976–87. Athenian dissidents approach Nicomedes: Thuc. 1.107.4.

34. Strategic context explaining construction of Corinthian Long Walls in the 450s: Strabo 8.6.20–25 with Arthur W. Parsons, “The Long Walls to the Gulf,” in Antoine Bon, Rhys Carpenter, and Arthur W. Parsons, Corinth: III:2: The Defenses of Acrocorinth and the Lower Town (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936), 84–125 (esp. 120–21), 282–96. Note also Salmon, WC, 180. Bitter Corinthian complaints: Thuc. 1.69.1.

35. Spartan aims from the outset quite likely more extensive than Thucydides reports: Ian M. Plant, “The Battle of Tanagra: A Spartan Initiative?” Historia 43:3 (3rd Quarter 1994): 259–74. Cf. Joseph Roisman, “The Background of the Battle of Tanagra and Some Related Issues,” AC 62:1 (1993): 69–85, and Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Campaign of Tanagra,” 149–72, who are correct in defending Thucydides’ integrity but, I think, mistaken in supposing that the Athenian historian was right in trusting what his Spartan informants had to say three decades later about the purpose of the expedition.

36. Normal to reduce besieging force after circumvallation: Thuc. 1.65.2, 2.77.1–78.2, 4.133.4, 5.114. Battle of Tanagra: Thuc. 1.107.5–108.2 with Hdt. 9.33–35; Pl. Menex. 242a–b; Diod. 11.80; Plut. Cim. 17.4–7, Per. 10.1–3; Paus. 1.29.6–9; and Just. Epit. 3.6.10 as well as Paus. 5.10.4; ML no. 35 = IG I³ 1149 = O&R no. 111; ML no. 36 = O&R no. 112; SEG XVII 243 = O&R no. 117A; and SEG XXXIV 560 = O&R no. 117B. Cf. Aristodemus FGrH 104 F12.1. Some Boeotians fight alongside the Lacedaemonians at Tanagra: Pl. Alc. I 112c, Paus. 1.29.6, 9. The fact that Pausanias mentions Athenian cavalry losses in this context suggests the presence at Tanagra of Boeotian cavalry as well: see Glenn Richard Bugh, The Horsemen of Athens (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 43–47, with Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Campaign of Tanagra. 1. Numbers,” 157–58. Two-day battle: Diod. 11.80, Paus. 1.29.9. For the pertinent documents, see Duane W. Roller, Tanagran Studies I. Sources and Documents on Tanagra in Boiotia (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1989). Cf. David W. Reece, “The Battle of Tanagra,” JHS 70 (1950): 75–76, and Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Campaign of Tanagra. 1. Numbers,” 154–59, who exaggerate the number of Boeotians present and presume that they were hoplites. That Tanagra had laid claim to hegemony within Boeotia is suggested by its coinage: Barbara Hughes Fowler, “Thucydides 1.107–108 and the Tanagran Federal Issues,” Phoenix 11:4 (Winter 1957): 164–70. That the ruling order at Tanagra had gone over to Nicomedes’ side or that he had succeeded in installing a regime friendly to the ambitions of Thebes we can infer from the harsh fate meted out to Tanagra by the Athenians two months later: Thuc. 108.2–3, Diod. 11.82.5. Import of Argive presence: Nikolaos Papazarkadas and Dimitris Sourlas, “The Funerary Monument for the Argives Who Fell at Tanagra (IG I³ 1149),” Hesperia 81:4 (October–December 2012): 585–617 (esp. 600–607). The fact that the siege of Aegina, which lasted nine months (Diod. 11.78.4), was still under way dictates that one assume that the battle of Tanagra took place the year following the initiation of that siege. If one thinks it inconceivable that the naval battles in the Saronic Gulf at Cecryphalia and Aegina could have taken place while the Athenians had a great fleet operating in Egypt, as Deane, Thucydides’ Dates, 31–45, does, one will date the battle of Tanagra well after 458, as he also does: ibid. 46–62.

37. Spartan victory, strategic defeat: Pl. Menex. 242a–b.

38. Thucydides on Myronides’ campaign: 1.108.2–3. Note Aristodemus FGrH 104 F12.2. The Locrian families mentioned by Thucydides may be the Hundred Houses that apparently made up the aristocratic ruling order of Opuntian Locris and that were expected to supply two maidens annually for a year of service in the temple of Athena at Ilium: consider Aen. Tact. 31.24 and Polyb. 12.5.7 in light of Walbank, HCP, I 334, and Arnaldo Momigliano, “The Locrian Maidens and the Date of Lycophron’s Alexandra,” CQ 39:1/2 (January–April 1945): 49–53, and see James M. Redfield, The Locrian Maidens: Love and Death in Greek Italy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 85–150.

39. Diodorus’ confusion: 11.81.2–3 should be put before 11.80. Rhetorical hyperbole: Antony Andrewes, “Diodoros and Ephorus: One Source of Misunderstanding,” in The Craft of the Ancient Historian: Essays in Honor of Chester G. Starr, ed. John W. Eadie and Josiah Ober (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985), 189–97. I see no reason, however, to reject Diodorus’ contention that Myronides fought two battles in Boeotia. His description of the second is not a doublet of his description of the first. Cf. Buck, “The Athenian Domination of Boeotia,” 219–22, and A History of Boeotia, 144–48, who doubts the validity of Diodorus’ testimony, with Demand, Thebes in the Fifth Century, 31–35.

40. Diodorus on Myronides’ expedition subsequent to the battle at Tanagra against the Lacedaemonians: 11.81.4–82.4. One indicator of Theban morale in the aftermath is Pind. Isthm. 7. The walls of Tanagra were not soon rebuilt: Duane W. Roller, “The Date of the Walls of Tanagra,” Hesperia 43:2 (April–June 1974): 260–63.

41. Diodorus on battle near Tanagra, on Oenophyta, Myronides’ conquest of Opunitan Locris and Phocis, and his invasion of Thessaly: 11.83.1–4. Later date for Thessalian venture: Thuc. 1.111.1. Aristotle on Thebes: Pol. 1302b29–32 with Demand, Thebes in the Fifth Century, 34–35.

42. Conflicts within Boeotia weaken the Boeotians: Thuc. 3.62.4, 4.92.6. Pericles on the Boeotians: Arist. Rh. 1407a2–6. In this connection, see Buck, “The Athenian Domination of Boeotia,” 221–23, and A History of Boeotia, 148–50.

43. Alliance with Amphictyonic League: IG I³ 9 = O&R no. 116. For the context, see Meiggs, AE, 175. 418–20, confirmed by Peter J. Rhodes, “After the Three-Bar ‘Sigma’ Controversy: The History of Athenian Imperialism Reassessed,” CQ n.s. 58:2 (December 2008): 500–506. Cf. however, Georges Roux, L’Amphictionie, Delphes et le temple d’Apollon au IVe siècle (Lyon: Maison de l’Orient, 1979), 44–46, 239–40, who harbors doubts. Evidence Delphi restored to the Phocians: Thuc. 1.112.5.

44. Long Walls finished: Thuc. 1.108.3 with Conwell, Connecting a City to the Sea, 53–54. Aeginetans surrender: Thuc. 1.108.4 with IG I³ 1503 = O&R no. 113. Reason to suspect autonomy may have been guaranteed: Thuc. 1.67.2. Nine-month siege: Diod. 11.78.4.

45. Tanagra accorded central place in Thucydides’ account of the Pentekontaetia: Terry E. Wick, “The Compositional Structure of Chapters 98–117 of Thucydides’ Excursus on the Pentecontaetia (I, 89 ff.),” AC 51 (1982): 15–24, and Marcel Piérart, “Note sur l’alliance entre Athènes et Argos au cours de la première guerre du Péloponnèse: À propos de Thucydide I 107–108,” MH 44:3 (1987): 175–80.

46. Trial for treason in absentia and condemnation: Thuc. 1.135.2–3, 138.6; Ar. Eq. 818–19; Pl. Grg. 516d; Idomeneus of Lampsacus FGrH 338 F1; Diod. 11.54.5, 55.4; Nep. Them. 8.3; Paus. 1.1.2 with Marr, Commentary, 134–35. Natural death at Magnesia: cf. Ar. Eq. 83–84 (with the scholia); Diod. 11.58.1–3; Plut. Cim. 18.5–7, Them. 31.3–32.5 with Thuc. 1.138.4–5, Nep. Them. 10.4, and Cic. Brut. 11.43; and see John L. Marr, “The Death of Themistocles,” G&R 42:2 (October 1995): 159–67, and Marr, Commentary, 161–67. Recall of sons: Pl. Meno 93d; Paus. 1.1.2, 26.4. Tomb near large harbor in the Peiraeus: Paus. 1.1.2 with Paul W. Wallace, “The Tomb of Themistocles in the Piraeus,” Hesperia 41:4 (October–December 1972): 451–62. Cf. Plut. Them. 32.5. See Frost, PT, 226–36.

47. Tolmides’ circumnavigation of the Peloponnesus, recruitment of volunteers, and campaigns: Thuc. 1.108.5; Diod. 11.84.2–8; Paus. 1.27.5, 4.24.7; Polyaen. Strat. 3.3.1; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F15.1; Schol. Aeschin. 2.75 (Blass = 78 Dinsdorf) with Cartledge, Sparta and Lakonia, 228–29, and Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” 501. With regard to the Spartan fleet, see Hdt. 8.43. On Gytheion, see Cic. Off. 111.11.49 and Strabo 8.5.2 with IACP no. 333. After reading Diod. 11.84.6 and Paus. 1.27.5 regarding the attack on Gytheion, cf. Caroline Falkner, “A Note on Sparta and Gytheum in the Fifth Century,” Historia 43:4 (4th Quarter 1994): 495–501, with W. Kendrick Pritchett, “Diodoros’ Pentekontaetia,” in Pritchett, Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia and Other Essays, 163–71 (at 167), who observes that Pausanias, who visited Gytheion and conversed with the locals (3.21.8), is apt to have known what he was talking about. Distance across Corinthian Gulf at mouth: Thuc. 2.86.3—corrected by Gomme, HCT, II 222. Zacynthus: IACP no. 141. Four póleıs on Cephallenia: IACP nos. 125, 132, 135–36.

48. Tolmides settles Messenians at Naupactus (IACP no. 165): Thuc. 1.103.1–3. For the Ozolian Locrians at Naupactus, see ML no. 20. There is an inscription, discovered more than fifty years ago and recently published, that spells out the arrangements under which the two communities shared the pólıs: SEG LI 642 = O&R no. 163 with E. Mastrokostas, “Archaíotētes kaì mnēmeîa Aıtolías kaì Akarnanías,” AD 19 B2 (1964): 294–300 (at 295), and Angelos P. Matthaiou and E. Mastrokostas, “Sunthḗkē Messeníōn kaì Naupaktíōn,” Horos 14–16 (2000–2003): 433–54. See also Adolfo J. Domínguez Monedero, “Locrios y Mesenios: De su cohabitación en Naupacto a la fundación de Mesene: Una aproximación al estudio de la diáspora y el ‘retorno’ de los Mesenios,” Polis 18 (2006): 39–73. Note also ML no. 13. Both groups of Naupactians appear to have been steadfastly loyal to Athens and hostile to Lacedaemon: no. 74 = O&R no. 164. Myronides’ earlier seizure of hostages in Opuntian Locris may help explain the willingness of the Ozolian Locrians to welcome the Messenians: see Ernst Badian, “Athens, the Locrians, and Naupactus,” CQ n.s. 40:2 (1990): 364–69, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 163–69. Cf., however, Pritchett, “Thucydides’ Pentekontaetia: 4. Settlement at Naupaktos–7. The Ozolian Hostages of 1.108.3,” 61–81.

49. Achaeans aligned with Athens: Thuc. 1.111.2 with John K. Anderson, “A Topographical and Historical Study of Achaea,” ABSA 49 (1954): 72–92 (esp. 81–83). Note also IACP, 472–77.

50. Phormio at Naupactus in 429, interferes with maritime traffic in and out Corinth and the Gulf of Corinth: Thuc. 2.69.1. Athenian interest in blocking grain shipments from the west: 3.86.3–4. Athenians blockade Nisaea: 2.93.4, 3.51. Use of Chalcis and Molycreium: 1.108.5, 2.83.3, 84.4, 3.102.2. Location and strategic importance of the former: Strabo 9.4.8 and Polyb. 5.94.7–9 with IACP no. 145. Location of the latter: Strabo 10.2.4, 21 with IACP no. 150. With [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.11–13, cf. Henry D. Westlake, “Seaborne Raids in Periclean Strategy,” CQ 39:3/4 (July–October 1945): 75–84 (at 77–78), reprinted in Westlake, Essays on the Greek Historians and Greek History (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1969), 84–100 (at 88–89); Peter A. Brunt, “Spartan Policy and Strategy in the Archidamian War,” Phoenix 19:4 (Winter 1965): 255–80 (at 271–72), reprinted in Brunt, Studies in Greek History and Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 84–111 (at 102–4); and Ste. Croix, OPW, 216–17, who—misapplying the argument advanced by Arnold W. Gomme, “A Forgotten Factor of Greek Naval Strategy,” JHS 53:1 (1933): 16–24, reprinted in Gomme, Essays in Greek History and Literature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1937), 190–203—expressly deny that Phormio could have done what, Thucydides plainly asserts, he did. As David M. Lewis, “The Archidamian War,” in CAH V² 370–432 (at 388), observes, when provided with a safe base from which to operate, triremes can without difficulty maintain a blockade. With regard to the obstacles facing galleys and merchant ships intent on running such a blockade, consider Morton, RPEAGS, 255–83. Given their aim, the difficulties that ancient sailing ships and merchant galleys had to overcome were greater than those faced by a blockading squadron. Although sailing ships could operate under cover of night on the open sea, it was highly risky for them to do so close to shore: James Beresford, The Ancient Sailing Season (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 204–9. Regarding the Corinthians’ need for imported grain, note their resort to a convoy: Polyaen. Strat. 5.13.1 with Salmon, WC, 128–31 (esp. n. 11), 308.

51. Patras (IACP no. 239) and Achaean Rhium in 419: Thuc. 5.52.2 with Gomme and Andrewes, HCT, IV 69–71; Donald Kagan, The Peace of Nicias and the Sicilian Expedition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981), 78–82; John F. Lazenby, The Peloponnesian War: A Military Study (London: Routledge, 2004), 111; and Hornblower, CT, III 139. There is evidence suggesting that the blockade instituted during the Archidamian war caused considerable grief: Simon Hornblower, The Greek World, 479–323, fourth edition (London: Routledge, 2011), 120.

52. Pointed warning to cities in the interior: Thuc. 1.120.2. Economic leverage exercised by the lord of the sea: [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 2.11–13. Cf. Kagan, Outbreak, 77–130, 205–316; Ste. Croix, OPW, 55–60, 66–88, 181, 186–87, 211–20; Lazenby, The Peloponnesian War, 16–30, 40–41, 44–48; and John R. Hale, Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy (New York: Viking Penguin, 2009), 105–7, 154–70, who—though aware that, in the Corinthian Gulf, the Athenians had a capacity to interfere with commercial shipping as well as with naval activity—neglect to consider the possibility that the Athenians had mounted a blockade against Corinth in the 450s and, therefore, fail to ponder the manner in which the Corinthians’ experience in that period is apt to have influenced their calculations in the late 430s. Note David M. Lewis, “Mainland Greece, 479–451,” in CAH V² 96–120 (at 119), who touches on the possibility but does not pursue the matter, and who neglects to consider its potential as an explanation for the aggressive conduct of the Corinthians in the late 430s: cf. Lewis, “The Archidamian War,” 370–80, with Rahe, SSAW, Chapters 1–2.

53. Abortive expedition against Pharsalus (IACP no. 413): Thuc. 1.111.1. Perhaps led by Myronides: Diod. 11.83.3–4 (who may, following Ephorus, have lumped together more than one discrete expedition). Pericles’ expedition in the Corinthian Gulf, to Sicyon, and Acarnania; Tolmides preoccupied in Boeotia: Thuc. 1.111.2–3, Diod. 11.85, Plut. Per. 19.2–3. Pericles employs fifty triremes: Diod. 11.85. One hundred triremes: Plut. Per. 19.2–3. The Messenians at Naupactus may have attacked Oeniadae (IACP no. 130) a year or two before Pericles’ expedition: Paus. 4.25. Cf., however, Klaus Freitag, “Oiniadai als Hafenstadt: Einige historisch-topographische Überlegungen,” Klio 76 (1994): 212–38, and “Der Akarnanische Bund im 5. Jh. v. Chr.,” in Akarnanien: Eine Landschaft im antiken Griechenland, ed. Percy Berktold, Jürgen Schmid, and Christian Wacker (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 1996), 75–86 (at 78–82).

54. Corinth on Athenians and Spartans: Thuc. 1.67.5–71.7 (esp. 70) with Clifford Orwin, The Humanity of Thucydides (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 41–43; Paula Debnar, Speaking the Same Language: Speech and Audience in Thucydides’ Spartan Debates (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 30–47; and Seth N. Jaffe, Thucydides on the Outbreak of War: Character and Contest (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 62–76.

55. Athenians on their right to dominion: Thuc. 1.72–78 (esp. 73–77) with Orwin, The Humanity of Thucydides, 44–63; Debnar, Speaking the Same Language, 47–58; and Jaffe, Thucydides on the Outbreak of War, 76–101.

56. Necho’s fortifications near Pelusium: Donald B. Redford, “New Light on Egypt’s Stance towards Asia, 610–586 BCE,” in Rethinking the Foundations: Historiography in the Ancient World and in the Bible: Essays in Honour of John Van Seters, ed. Stephen L. McKenzie and Thomas Römer (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000), 183–96 (esp. 185–86, 190–93). Egypt difficult to conquer: Dan’el Kahn and Oded Tammuz, “Egypt Is Difficult to Enter: Invading Egypt—A Game Plan (Seventh to Fourth Centuries BCE),” Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 36 (2009): 37–66. Age-old Egyptian strategy: Ruzicka, Trouble in the West, 4–13.

57. Megabazos’ gold not persuasive: Thuc. 1.109.2–3, Diod. 11.74.5–6.

58. Two hundred triremes to Egypt: Thuc. 1.104.2, Diod. 11.74.3. Cf. 11.71.5, where Diodorus mentions three hundred triremes, and 13.25.2, where a Syracusan reports that the Athenians lost three hundred triremes and their crews in Egypt.

59. Samian contribution: ML no. 34 (with 1988 addendum = IG XII 6 I 279) = O&R no. 110.

60. Manning the fleet: Moshe Amit, Athens and the Sea: A Study in Athenian Sea-Power (Brussels: Latomus, 1965), 30–49; Meiggs, AE, 439–41; and Borimir Jordan, The Athenian Navy in the Classical Period: A Study of Athenian Naval Administration and Military Organization in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975), 210–40.

61. Megabyzus to Egypt: Thuc. 1.109.3 with Hdt. 3.160.2. See Ruzicka, Trouble in the West, 31–33. Mainstay of Artaxerxes, eventually satrap of Syria: Ctesias FGrH 688 F14.34, 37–38. Note also F14.40–42.

62. Triremes lost in Egypt: Thuc. 1.109.4–110.3 read in light of 1.104.1–2 and 109.1, Aristodemus FGrH 104 F11.4. Island Prosopitis: Hdt. 2.41.4–6, Strabo 17.1.20, Ptolemy Geog. 4.5.9 with Alan B. Lloyd, Commentary on Herodotus, Book II, 1–98 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), 187. Island’s carrying capacity in ancient and modern times: Hermann Kees, Ancient Egypt: A Cultural Topography (London: Faber and Faber, 1961), 184–89. Likely mode of defense: A. James Holladay, “The Hellenic Disaster in Egypt,” JHS 109 (1989): 176–82 (at 176–78), reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 43–53 (at 44–47).

63. Destruction of relief expedition as well: Thuc. 1.110.4, Aristodemus FGrH 104 F11.4.

64. Two hundred triremes lost: Thuc. 1.109.4–110.3, read in light of 1.104.1–2 and 109.1; Isoc. 8.86; Ael. VH 5.10.

65. Scholarly incredulity: Henry D. Westlake, “Thucydides and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt,” CPh 45:4 (October 1950): 209–16, reprinted in Westlake, Essays on the Greek Historians and Greek History, 61–73, where the earlier scholarly literature is cited; Pierre Salmon, La Politique égyptienne d’Athènes (VIe et Ve siècles avant J.-C.) (Brussels: Palais des académies, 1965), 90–192; Holladay, “The Hellenic Disaster in Egypt,” 176–82, reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 43–53; Eric W. Robinson, “Thucydidean Sieges, Prosopitis, and the Hellenic Disaster in Egypt,” CA 18:1 (April 1999): 132–52; Peter Green, “Appendix B,” in DS, 242–43; and Kahn, “Inaros’ Rebellion against Artaxerxes I and the Athenian Disaster in Egypt,” 424–40.

66. See Joan M. Bigwood, “Ctesias’ Account of the Revolt of Inarus,” Phoenix 30:1 (Spring 1976): 1–25.

67. With regard to the Egyptian revolt, cf. Ctesias FGrH 688 F14.36–38 and Diodorus 11.75, 77.1–5 with Thuc. 1.110; then, see Diod. 13.25.2. Thucydides a child: Charles W. Fornara, “Thucydides’ Birth Date,” in Nomodeiktes, 71–80.

68. Pompeius Trogus’ incredulity (Just. Epit. 3.6.6–7) is rooted in his belief that the Athenians, overstretched, lost a battle at sea against the Peloponnesians at a time when Thucydides (1.105–6), though he emphasizes that his compatriots were short of manpower, has them routing the Peloponnesians and Aeginetans at sea, initiating a siege of Aegina, and defeating the Corinthians on land. Thucydides’ poignant choice of language: cf. 1.110.1, which should be read in light of Hornblower, CT, I 176, with Thuc. 7.87.6, and note Diod. 13.25.2. To their credit, Holladay, “The Hellenic Disaster in Egypt,” 176–82, reprinted in Holladay, AFC, 43–53; and Robinson, “Thucydidean Sieges, Prosopitis, and the Hellenic Disaster,” 132–52, recognize that the testimony of Diodorus and Ctesias on this question is worthless. Holladay underestimates the resources apt to have been available to the Athenians and exaggerates the number of triremes likely to have been available to Corinth, Aegina, and their allies at this time. Robinson errs solely in supposing that an island that could support more than a million people in modern times could not sustain forty to fifty thousand men in antiquity. Egyptian farms are known to have produced a large surplus. If Prosopitis could support numerous villages, as Herodotus ( 2.41.4–6) claims, it could surely support the Athenians bottled up there. See Jan M. Libourel, “The Athenian Disaster in Egypt,” AJPh 92:4 (October 1971): 605–15; Meiggs, AE, 101–8, 473–76; and Samons, PCH, 107–8. Although David Blackman, “The Athenian Navy and Allied Naval Contributions in the Pentecontaetia,” GRBS 10:3 (Fall 1969): 179–216, does not directly address the question raised by Pompeius Trogus, the argument advanced in his article suggests the likelihood that, in time of war, the Athenians made sure that they had a sufficient reserve.

Chapter 6. Back to Square One

Epigraph: Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu, Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence, 1734, ed. Françoise Weil and Cecil Courtney, IX, in Œuvres complètes de Montesquieu, ed. Jean Ehrard and Catherine Volpilhac-Auger (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1998–2008; Paris: Éditions Garnier Classiques, 2010–), II 154.

1. Amyrtaeus: Thuc. 1.110.2–3, 112.3; Plut. Cim. 18.1–19.2. Thannyras son of Inaros and Pausiris son of Amyrtaeus: Hdt. 2.140, 3.15. On the marshlands, see Briant, CA, 575–77.

2. Athenian encroachments in the eastern Mediterranean: Meiggs, AE, 102, 420–21. Note Ezra 7:7–8 and Nehemiah 2:1–8 with Robert J. Littman, “Dor and the Athenian Empire,” AJAH 15:2 (1990): 155–76, and Christopher Ehrhardt, “Athens, Egypt, Phoenicia, c. 459–444 B.C.,” AJAH 15:2 (1990): 177–96. Although there is no evidence to confirm their hypothesis, I find attractive the suggestion advanced by Littman, Ehrhardt, and John R. Hale, Lords of the Sea: The Epic Story of the Athenian Navy and the Birth of Democracy (New York: Viking Penguin, 2009), 102–3, that the Athenians, while involved in Egypt, seized Dorus on the Palestinian coast to use as a naval base.

3. Consider the mention of Ahriman at Plut. Them. 28.6 in light of Rahe, PC, Chapter 1.

4. Literary evidence treasury moved to Athens on an occasion, not long before 449, when Pericles was in charge and it was feared that the Persians might seize Delos: Diod. 12.38.2, Plut. Per. 12.1. Note Diod. 12.40.1, 54.3, 13.21.3; Isoc. 8.126, 15.234; Nep. Arist. 3.1. Note also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F7. Treasury in Athens by 454/3: Meiggs, AE, 109. See Samons, EO, 92–106. Contemplation of such a move not long before Eurymedon: Chapter 2, note 10, above. Cf. Just. Epit. 3.6.1–4 (which should be read in light of Diod. 11.64.3), who contends, implausibly, that it was the Spartan threat in 461 that occasioned the shift; and note Noel D. Robertson, “The True Nature of the ‘Delian League,’ 478–461 BC,” AJAH 5:1–2 (1980): 64–96, 110–33 (at 112–19), and Peter Green, “Commentary,” in DS, 130, n. 240, 139, n. 270, who point to Diod. 11.70 and 12.38.2 and speculate that discontent within the Delian League in the wake of the Thasian revolt and Athens’ breach with Sparta occasioned the shift. If the treasury was shifted to Athens at Pericles’ insistence in 454 as a consequence of a Persian resurgence in the wake of Athens’ Egyptian catastrophe, as Plutarch and Diodorus claim, it makes no sense to date the Egyptian disaster to 457/6 and the Peace of Callias to 456/5, as Antony E. Raubitschek, “The Peace Policy of Pericles,” AJA 70:1 (January 1966): 37–41, reprinted in Raubitschek, SH, 16–22, does.

5. The memory of this event may be reflected in a confused passage in Andocides—in which the orator attributes to Miltiades the arrangement of a truce with Sparta that was, we know, Cimon’s work and also mentions a building campaign aimed at producing one hundred new triremes to replace those no longer seaworthy which had been used in the Persian Wars: 3.3–5.

6. Pericles and recall of Cimon: Plut. Cim. 17.8. Negotiations with Elpinike: Per. 10.5, Mor. 812f; Ath. 13.589e–f. Cf. Fornara/Samons, ACP, 138–39, who refuse to believe that Pericles recalled Cimon and the two reached a modus vivendi.

7. Cimon and his friends at Tanagra: Plut. Cim. 17.4–7, Per. 10.1–3. Recall for the purpose of negotiating a truce and accomplishment of that in short order: Cim. 17.8–18.1, Per. 10.3–5, Mor. 812f; Nep. Cim. 3.3; Theopompus of Chios FGrH 115 F88. Andocides’ confusion: 3.3. Likely timing of recall: cf. Antony E. Raubitschek, “Kimons Zurückberufung,” Historia 3:3 (1955): 379–80, and “The Peace Policy of Pericles,” 37–41, the latter reprinted in Raubitschek, SH, 16–22, and Ron K. Unz, “The Chronology of the Pentekontaetia,” CQ n.s. 36:1 (1986): 68–85 (at 76–82), with Meiggs, AE, 422–23. I see no reason to doubt Plutarch’s testimony, but cf. Rhodes, CAAP, 339; and Samons, PCH, 90–91.

8. Boeotian cities made to pay phóros: IG I³ 260.9.9 with Lewis, OFPW, 71–78 (at 77, n. 43), reprinted in Lewis, SPGNEH, 9–21 (at 20, n. 43), and “Mainland Greece, 479–451 B.C.,” in CAH V² 116, n. 72. Regime disputes in Thebes and elsewhere in Boeotia a problem for Athens: Arist. Pol. 1302b29–32 with [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 3.10–11. Getting to the bottom of this is difficult: Robert J. Buck, “The Athenian Domination of Boeotia,” CPh 65:4 (October 1970): 217–27 (esp. 221–25). Tolmides deals with troubles in Boeotia, installs cleruchies on Euboea and Naxos: consider Diod. 11.85.1, 88.3, in conjunction with Schol. Ar. Aves 556 and Suda s.v. hıeròs pólemos, and see Paus. 1.27.5, 5.23.4 (where the rebellion on Euboea in 446 is referred to as the second such revolt); Plut. Per. 11.5, 19.1–2; Andoc. 3.3, 9. See also Plut. Per. 7.8, Ael. VH 6.1, Schol. Ar. Nub. 211. Andros (IACP no. 475) also a possibility: Plut. Per. 11.5. See Meiggs, AE, 120–25, and Peter J. Rhodes, “The Delian League to 449 B.C.,” in CAH, V² 34–61 (at 54–61, esp. 59–60), on the reduction of the phóros assessment attendant on the installation of these cleruchies. In this connection, something can be gleaned from Johan Henrik Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon (Aarhus: University of Aarhus Press, 1997), 85–97. Troubles elsewhere in Delian League: Diod. 11.70.3–4 with what can be inferred from the absence of various cities from the so-called tribute lists for this time: see ATL, II 8–12 = IG I³ 259–63 with ML no. 39 = O&R no. 119 (where this material is published only in part) and the as-yet unpublished Ph.D. thesis of Bjørn Paarmann, “Aparchai and Phoroi: A New Commented Edition of the Athenian Tribute Quota Lists and Assessment Decrees,” dissertation, University of Fribourg, 2007, II 14–23 (with III 3–23), which is slated to appear in revised form as a Hesperia supplement; and consider Meiggs, AE, 109–26. Persian meddling at Erythrae: ML no. 40 = IG I³ 14 = O&R no. 121 with Meiggs, AE, 421–22.

9. Five-year truce: Thuc. 1.112.1. Diodorus (11.86.1), who is no doubt following Ephorus, is confused about the date—perhaps because he supposes that Cimon was recalled immediately after the battle of Tanagra: see note 7, above, and its context.

10. Lacedaemon’s motive for making truce: Lewis, SP, 62–63.

11. Argive peace with Sparta: Thuc. 5.14.4, 28.2. Note, in this connection, Thuc. 2.9.2, Diod. 12.42.3–4.

12. Cleandridas at Tegea: Polyaen. Strat. 2.10.3. Later stature of Cleandridas: note 46, in context, below. Tegea’s dogged loyalty thereafter: Thuc. 5.32.3–4, 57, 61–64 (with 4.134, 5.65.4); Diod. 12.79.3. That loyalty’s oligarchical roots: Xen. Hell. 6.5.6–9, Diod. 15.59.1–4. See Christian Callmer, Studien zur Geschichte Arkadiens bis zur Grundzug des arkadischen Bundes (Lund: A.-B. Gleerup, 1943), 86, and Thomas Heine Nielsen, Arkadia and Its Poleis in the Archaic and Classical Periods (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002), 342–43, 394–96.

13. Cypriot expedition: Thuc. 1.112.2–4; Diod. 12.3.1–4.6; Nep. Cim. 3.4; Plut. Cim. 18.1–19.2 (with Phanodemos FGrH 325 F23), Per. 10.4–5; Aristid. Panath. 151f; Suda s.v. Kímōn. Epigram: Diod. 11.62.3 (where the reference to Cyprus shows that the battle in question was not the one fought at Eurymedon, as Diodorus supposes, but the struggle that took place nearly two decades thereafter at Cypriot Salamis): see note 19, below. Cf. Isoc. 8.86 and Ael. VH 5.10, who claim that the Athenians and their allies lost in the battle at sea 150 triremes—a number that would have rendered their victory a crippling defeat. There is no real evidence to support the notion that Cimon led an expedition to Cyprus in 461 (rather than in 451) and that Diodorus’ narrative refers to it. Cf., however, John Barns, “Cimon and the First Athenian Expedition to Cyprus,” Historia 2:2 (1953): 163–76, who cites much of the earlier secondary literature, and see the sensible remarks of Meiggs, AE, 124–28. In this connection, note also Eduard Meyer, “Die Schlacht am Eurymedon und Kimons cyprischer Feldzug,” in Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1892–99), II 1–25 (esp. 7–25).

14. Various aims imputed to Cimon: Plut. Cim. 18.1, 6; S. Thomas Parker, “The Objectives and Strategy of Cimon’s Expedition to Cyprus,” AJPh 97:1 (Spring 1976): 30–38; and Green, “Commentary,” in DS, 184–86, nn. 24 and 27.

15. Negotiation of peace with Artaxerxes: Diod. 12.4.4 (with 9.10.5 and 15.28). Callias as Athenian interlocutor: Diod. 12.4.4, Paus. 1.8.2, Aristodemus FGrH 104 F13, Suda s.v. Kallías. Terms of agreement:, Diod. 12.4.4–6; Isoc. 4.118–20, 7.80, 12.59; Dem. 19.273; Lycurg. In Leocr. 73; Plut. Cim. 13.4; Ael. Arist. Panath. 153; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F13; Suda s.v. Kímōn. Timetable: Meiggs, AE, 124–55, 456–57, 515–18. Cf. David M. Lewis, “Chronological Notes,” in CAH V² 501–2. Note, in this connection, Tonio Hölscher, “Penelope für Persepolis, oder wie man einen Kriege gegen den Erzfeind beendet,” JDAI 126 (2011): 33–76.

16. Cf. John O. Hyland, Persian Interventions: The Achaemenid Empire, Athens and Sparta, 450–386 BCE (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018), 15–34, who labors assiduously to recharacterize Artaxerxes’ reluctant acceptance of defeat and his acknowledgment of the limits to his capacity to project power in the Mediterranean as a positive decision predicated on a rational, cost-benefit calculation of the likelihood that the Persian exchequer would benefit from a regime of arms control, with Stephen Ruzicka, Trouble in the West: Egypt and the Persian Empire, 525–332 BCE (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 33–34. If the great-grandson of Cyrus and grandson of Darius abandoned Persia’s policy of aggression in the Mediterranean, it was surely not to save money. It was because Achaemenid Persia had suffered successive, devastating military defeats at Salamis, Plataea, Mycale, Eurymedon, and Cypriot Salamis and because Artaxerxes himself had lost heart. The strategy pioneered by Darius and pursued by Xerxes had failed too often to be sustained. Occasional breaches of terms, covert warfare in Anatolia, maintenance of cold peace, nonetheless: Samuel K. Eddy, “The Cold War between Athens and Persia, c. 448–412 B.C.,” CPh 68:4 (October 1973): 241–58; Peter Thonemann, “Lycia, Athens and Amorges,” in Interpreting the Athenian Empire, ed. John T. Ma, Nikolaos Papazarkadas, and Robert Parker (London: Duckworth, 2009), 167–94 (esp. 173–94); and Hyland, Persian Interventions, 34–45.

17. Polemical references: Isoc. 4.118–20, 7.80, 12.59; Dem. 19.273; Lycurg. In Leocr. 72–73. Note also the reference to the Great King’s giving up something that belonged to him in Lys. 2.56–57. Theopompus’ argument and its defects: consider FGrH 115 F153–54, where Darius and not Artaxerxes is mentioned as the pertinent Persian ruler, in light of Gomme, HCT, I 331–35, and Angelos P. Matthaiou, “Attic Public Inscriptions of the Fifth Century BC in Ionic Script,” in Greek History and Epigraphy: Essays in Honour of P. J. Rhodes, ed. Lynette Mitchell and Lene Rubinstein (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales, 2009), 201–12. A few scholars, nonetheless, side with Theopompus: Chapter 3, note 6, above. Most do not: Chapter 3, note 4, above.

18. Mytilenian reference to Athens’ abandonment of war: Thuc. 3.10.2–4. Persians excluded from Ionia, fleet barred from the Aegean: 8.56.4. Evidence hinting at prior limitations on the Great King’s freedom of action in Anatolia: 8.58.2. Ionian cities unwalled: 3.33.2 with Teleclides F42 (Kock) ap. Plut. Per. 16.2, who treats Pericles as the arbiter in this particular. See Hornblower, CT, I 179–81.

19. Dedication: Paus. 10.15.4–5; Plut. Nic. 13.5, Mor. 397f, 724b. Epigram: Diod. 11.62.3, Anth. Pal. 7.296, Aristid. Or. 46.156, 49.380 (Dindorf) = 28.64 (Keil); Schol. Ael. Aristid. Or. 3.209 (Dindorf) with John H. Molyneux, Simonides: A Historical Study (Wauconda, IL: Bochazy-Carducci, 1992), 291–300. Cf. Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “Classical Epigrams and Epitaphs: A Study of the Kimonian Age,” JHS 53:1 (1933): 71–104 (at 83–87), who thinks that the first four lines refer to Eurymedon and the rest to Cypriot Salamis, with Meyer, “Die Schlacht am Eurymedon und Kimons cyprischer Feldzug,” 9–25; Gomme, HCT, I 288–89 (esp. n. 1); Page, FGE, 264–68; and Ernst Badian, “The Peace of Callias: Appendix,” in Badian, FPP, 61–72 (at 64–66), who argue persuasively that the two quatrains are inseparable and that the epigram in its entirety refers to the battle of Cypriot Salamis. Cf., however, Pétros J. Stylianou, “The Untenability of Peace with Persia in the 460s B.C.,” Meletai kai Upomnemata 2 (1988): 339–71 (at 353–58), and Hornblower, CT, I 153–54, who link the epigram solely with Eurymedon.

20. In the 450s, Pericles one among many: Podlecki, PHC, 55–76. Thucydides son of Melesias a kinsman by marriage of Cimon: Arist. Ath. Pol. 28.2, Plut. Per. 11.1 with Rhodes, CAAP, 349–51.

21. Archonship opened to zeugítaı: Arist. Ath. Pol. 26.2. Terminus ante quem: Diod. 11.81.1 with CAAP, 329–31. Juridical definition of hıppeîs and zeugítaı in terms of function in war: Geoffrey Ernest Maurice de Ste. Croix, “The Solonian Census Classes and the Qualifications for Cavalry and Hoplite Service,” in Ste. Croix, Athenian Democratic Origins and Other Essays, ed. David Harvey and Robert Parker (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 5–72. Jury pay: Arist. Ath. Pol. 27.3–4, Pol. 1274a8–10; Pl. Grg. 515e; Plut. Per. 9.1–3; Aristid. Or. 46.192 (Dindorf) with CAAP, 338–40; Minor M. Markle, “Jury Pay and Assembly Pay,” in CRUX: Essays Presented to G. E. M. de Ste. Croix on His 75th Birthday, ed. Paul Cartledge and F. D. Harvey, HPTh 6:1/2 (1985), 265–97; Stadter, CPP, 117; and Stephan Podes, “The Introduction of Jury Pay by Pericles: Some Mainly Chronological Considerations,” Athenaeum 82 (1994): 95–110. Rate: Ar. Eq. 797–800, Schol. Ar. Vesp. 88 (where 300 should be emended to 3); Arist. Ath. Pol. 62.2. Pay for infantrymen, cavalrymen, guards (and, of course, naval personnel): Plut. Per. 11.4, 12.3–5 with Thuc. 3.17.4; [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.13; Arist. Ath. Pol. 24.3, 27.2. Pericles responsible for military pay: Ulpian on Dem. 13 (p. 222 Dindorf = p. 167 Dilts). See Pritchett, GSAW, I 7–14; CAAP, 303–6; and Stadter, CPP, 117–18. Salaried city: Plut. Per. 12.4 (with 11.4). Note Ar. Vesp. 655–724, Thuc. 6.24.3, [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.13. For the extent in the fifth century, see Arist. Ath. Pol. 24.3 with CAAP, 300–309. Note also Arist. Ath. Pol. 62.2 with CAAP, 691–95.

22. Citizenship law: Arist. Ath. Pol. 26.4, Philochorus FGrH 328 F119, Plut. Per. 37.3–4 with CAAP, 331–35, and Stadter, CPP, 333–35. Note also Ar. Aves 1649–52; Ael. VH 6.10, 13.24, F68. Excessive demographic growth is not likely to have been a pressing concern so soon after the losses Athens suffered in Egypt: cf. Cynthia B. Patterson, Pericles’ Citizenship Law of 451–450 BC (Salem, NH: Ayer, 1981), with Samons, PCH, 88–90, 107–8. Massive influx of metics, shortage of Athenian men, need to boost Athenian morale: Josine H. Blok, “Perikles’ Citizenship Law: A New Perspective,” Historia 58:2 (2009): 141–70. For another view, see Alan L. Boegehold, “Perikles’ Citizenship Law of 451/0 B.C.,” in Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology, ed. Alan L. Boegehold and Adele C. Scafuro (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), 57–66.

23. Evidence for mass migration to Attica’s towns: Ar. Eq. 813–15 with Aksel Damsgaard-Madsen, “Attic Funeral Inscriptions—Their Use as Historical Sources and Some Preliminary Results,” in Studies in Ancient History and Numismatics Presented to Rudi Thomsen, ed. Aksel Damsgaard-Madsen et al. (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1988), 55–68, and Mogens Herman Hansen et al., “The Demography of Attic Demes: The Evidence of the Sepulchral Inscriptions,” ARID 19 (1990): 25–44. Verdict of nameless Athenian critic: [Xen.] Ath. Pol. 1.2–3. Political preeminence of the poor in a salaried democracy: Arist. Pol. 1292b41–1293a9. Increased importance of manufacturing and trade: Peter Acton, Poiesis: Manufacturing in Classical Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), which should be taken with a grain of salt. Regime change: cf. Robert W. Wallace, “Revolutions and a New Order in Solonian Athens and Archaic Greece,” and Josiah Ober, “‘I Besieged That Man’: Democracy’s Revolutionary Start,” in Origins of Democracy in Classical Greece, ed. Kurt A. Raaflaub, Josiah Ober, and Robert W. Wallace (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 49–104, who argue, respectively, that Solon and those in his generation and Cleisthenes and those in his were the true founders of Athens’ democracy, with Kurt A. Raaflaub, “The Breakthrough of Dēmokratia in Mid-Fifth-Century Athens,” in ibid. 105–54, who (rightly in my opinion) dates the transformation to the time of Ephialtes and Pericles and emphasizes the degree to which the rule of what its opponents with some justice would call the nautıkòs óchlos distinguished the Athenian regime that emerged at this point not only from its less fully democratic predecessors at Athens but also from the populist polities elsewhere in Hellas, and then cf. Paola Ceccarelli, “Sans Thalassocratie, pas de démocratie? Le Rapport entre thalassocratie et démocratie à Athènes dans la discussion du Ve et IVe siècle av. J.-C.,” Historia 42:4 (4th Quarter 1993): 444–70, with Fornara/Samons, ACP, 58–75; David M. Pritchard, “From Hoplite Republic to Thetic Democracy,” AH 24 (1994): 111–40; and Edmund M. Burke, “The Habit of Subsidization in Classical Athens: Toward a Thetic Ideology,” C&M 56 (2005): 5–47 (esp. 5–30). In this connection, see Rhodes, CAAP, 315–19, and Martha C. Taylor, Thucydides, Pericles, and the Idea of Athens in the Peloponnesian War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), esp. 7–134. Salaries central to regime and its foreign policy: Samons, PCH, 85–88, 99–100.

24. Potential leaders: Plut. Per. 16.3, Comp. Per. et Fab. 1.2. Note Plut. Mor. 345c–d.

25. Drift toward a common currency: Thomas Figueira, The Power of Money: Coinage and Politics in the Athenian Empire (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 21–197.

26. Invitation to Panhellenic congress, Spartans reject: Plut. Per. 17.1–4 with Stadter, CPP, 201–8. On the so-called Oath of Plataea, see Rahe, PC, Chapter 8 (esp. note 61), with Meiggs, AE, 504–7; Johannes S. Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C. (Groningen: Wolters-Noordhof, 1970), 43–44; and Stadter, CPP, 205. Plataeans pledge to tend graves: Thuc. 3.58.4–5. Festival of the Eleutheria at Plataea: consider Plut. Arist. 21.1–6, who was especially knowledgeable about matters Boeotian, in conjunction with Strabo 9.2.31 and Paus. 9.2.6, and see Antony E. Raubitschek, “The Covenant of Plataea,” TAPhA 91 (1960): 178–83, reprinted in Raubitschek, SH, 11–15, and Meiggs, AE, 507–8. Note Christian Habicht, “Falsche Urkunde zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege,” Hermes 89:1 (1961): 1–35, who contends that many of the documents of the fourth and later centuries pertinent to fifth-century events were forged, and cf. Ida Calabi, Ricerche sui rapporti fra le poleis (Florence: Nuova Italia, 1953), 67–78; Robin Seager, “The Congress Decree: Some Doubts and a Hypothesis,” Historia 18:2 (April 1969): 129–41; A. Brian Bosworth, “The Congress Decree: Another Hypothesis,” Historia 20:5/6 (4th Quarter 1971): 600–616; and Adrian Tronson, “The History and Mythology of ‘Pericles’ Panhellenic Congress’ in Plutarch’s Life of Pericles 17,” EMC 44, n.s. 19:3 (2000): 359–93, who harbor doubts regarding the authenticity of the so-called Congress Decree, with Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “The Question of Tribute in 449–448 B.C.,” Hesperia 14:3 (July–September 1945): 212–29; ATL, III 279–80; Kagan, Outbreak, 109–16; Meiggs, AE, 512–15; Jack M. Balcer, “Separatism and Anti-Separatism in the Athenian Empire (478–433 B.C.),” Historia 23:1 (1st Quarter 1974): 21–39 (at 27–35); Shalom Perlman, “Panhellenism, the Polis and Imperialism,” Historia 25:1 (1st Quarter 1976): 1–30 (esp. 6–13); Guy T. Griffith, “A Note on Plutarch Pericles 17,” Historia 27:1 (1st Quarter 1978): 218–19; Brian R. MacDonald, “The Authenticity of the Congress Decree,” Historia 31:1 (1st Quarter 1982): 120–23; Stadter, CPP, 202–3; Edmund F. Bloedow, “‘Olympian’ Thoughts: Plutarch on Pericles’ Congress Decree,” OAth 21 (1996): 7–12; George L. Cawkwell, “The Peace Between Athens and Persia,” Phoenix 51:2 (Summer 1997): 115–30 (at 126–29), reprinted in Cawkwell, CC, 151–69 (at 165–68); and Jonathan M. Hall, “Eleusis, the Oath of Plataia, and the Peace of Kallias,” in Hall, Artifact and Artifice: Classical Archaeology and the Ancient Historian (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), 55–76, who do not. Cf. John Walsh, “The Authenticity and the Dates of the Peace of Callias and the Congress Decree,” Chiron 11 (1981): 31–63 (esp. 49–63), who argues for the decree’s authenticity but dates it to the late 460s; and Raubitschek, “The Peace Policy of Pericles,” 37–41, reprinted in Raubitschek, SH, 16–22, who does the same and dates it to the 450s.

27. For an admirably clear and succinct description of the records kept on stone for the years 454/3 through 440/39 (ATL, II 8–21 = IG I³ 269–72 = Paarmann, “Aparchai and Phoroi,” II 14–44 [with III 3–60]) and the evidence pertaining to the missing year, see Peter J. Rhodes, A History of the Classical Greek World, 478–323 BC (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 48–50.

28. Building program: IG I³ 436 with Thuc. 2.13.3; Diod. 12.38.2, 40.2; Cic. Off. 2.17.60; and Plut. Per. 12–14 with Stadter, CPP, 145–87. See Boersma, Athenian Building Policy from 561/0 to 405/4 B.C., 65–81; Heiner Knell, Perikleische Baukunst (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1979); and Antonio Corso, Monumenti Periclei: Saggio critico sulla attività edilizia di Pericle (Venice: Istituto veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, 1986). Cost: Alec Blamire, “Athenian Finance, 454–404 B.C.,” Hesperia 70:1 (January–March 2001), 99–126 (at 99–101). For the date, see IG I³ 449. Cf. the ingenious reconstruction of the evidence proposed by Henry Theodore Wade-Gery, “Thucydides the Son of Meslesias,” JHS 52:2 (1932): 205–27 (at 222–23), reprinted in Wade-Gery, EGH, 239–70 (at 262–64); elaborated in ATL, III 326–32; and defended in one very important particular in Henry Theodore Wade-Gery and Benjamin D. Meritt, “Athenian Resources in 449 and 431 B.C.,” Hesperia 26:3 (July–September 1957): 163–97 (at 163–88), with the intelligent criticism articulated by Kagan, Outbreak, 115; Ste. Croix, OPW, 311–12; Lisa Kallet-Marx, “Did the Tribute Fund the Parthenon?” CA 8:2 (October 1989): 252–66; Adalberto Giovannini, “Le Parthenon, le Trésor d’Athéna et le tribut des alliés,” Historia 39:2 (1990): 129–48, reprinted in an English translation by Giselle Glassman as “The Parthenon, the Treasury of Athena and the Tribute of the Allies,” in The Athenian Empire, ed. Polly Low (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008), 164–84, and “La Participation des alliés au financement du Parthénon: ‘Aparchè’ ou tribut?” Historia 46:2 (2nd Quarter 1997): 145–57; and Spencer A. Pope, “Financing and Design: The Development of the Parthenon Program and the Parthenon Building Accounts,” in Miscellanea Mediterranea, ed. R. Ross Holloway, Archaeologia Transatlantica 18 (Providence, RI: Center for Old World Archaeology and Art, Brown University Press, 2000), 61–69; then, see David M. Lewis, “The Thirty Years’ Peace,” in CAH V² 121–46 (at 125–26). With Lewis and Loren J. Samons II, “Athenian Finance and the Treasury of Athena,” Historia 42:2 (1993): 129–38, and EO, 25–83, 107–64, and in contrast with Kallet-Marx, Giovannini, and Pope, I am inclined to regard IG I³ 363, which records the expenditures for the expedition against Samos in 441/0, as a strong indication that the treasury of Athena—which is known to have paid for that expedition (and for the most part to have funded the building program)—had absorbed a substantial sum from the reserves of the Delian League treasury; and, although I recognize that, in the debates reported in Plut. Per. 12, Pericles’ opponents had frequent resort to hyperbole, I cannot imagine such a debate taking place if the funds to be employed for the building program from the contributions made by the allies were as insubstantial as these three scholars seem to think. This suggests that Wade-Gery and Meritt may have been at least partially correct in their restoration and interpretation of the so-called Papyrus Decree (Strasbourg Papyrus Graeca 84: Anonymous Argentinensis). The five thousand talents of silver contributed by the allies in accord with the assessment of Aristeides mentioned therein may well have been set aside for the construction of the Propylaea and the Parthenon, which are referenced in the same document. There can be no doubt that the decree was introduced by Pericles, and the argument that Wade-Gery makes regarding the archon date is more plausible than Kallet-Marx is willing to acknowledge. For cautious assessments, see Kagan, Outbreak, 115–16 (with 382); Meiggs, AE, 155 (with 515–18); Stadter, CPP, 146–47; and Podlecki, PHC, 167–68. Cf., however, Ste. Croix, OPW, 310–11; Fornara/Samons, ACP, 93–96 (which should be read with 176–78); and Samons, EO, 139–50.

29. Debate over the use of Delian League funds for the building program, ostracism of son of Melesias: Plut. Per. 11–14 (esp. 12 and 14), confirmed in one particular by IG I³ 49, with Stadter, CPP, 145–87; Podlecki, PHC, 86–87; and Samons PCH, 91–102. Exploitation of allies a source of embarrassment: note Xen. Vect. 1.1, and see Lisa Kallet, “Accounting for Culture in Fifth-Century Athens,” in Democracy, Empire, and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens, ed. Deborah Boedeker and Kurt A. Raaflaub (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 43–58. Reliability of Plutarch’s account, Ion of Chios likely source for report of the debate: cf. William S. Ferguson, “The Historical Value of the Twelfth Chapter of Plutarch’s Life of Pericles,” TAPA 35 (1904): 5–20; Frank J. Frost, “Pericles, Thucydides, the son of Melesias, and Athenian Politics before the War,” Historia 13:4 (October 1964): 385–99 (esp. 385–92), reprinted in Frost, Politics and the Athenians: Essays on Athenian History and Historiography (Toronto: Edgar Kent Publishers, 2005), 278–97 (esp. 278–88); Antony Andrewes, “The Opposition to Perikles,” JHS 98 (1978): 1–8 (esp. 1–4); and Walter Ameling, “Plutarch, Perikles 12–14,” Historia 34:1 (1st Quarter 1985): 47–63, with Anton Powell, “Athens’ Pretty Face: Anti-Feminine Rhetoric and Fifth-Century Controversy over the Parthenon,” in The Greek World, ed. Anton Powell (London: Routledge, 1995), 245–70. On the date of the ostracism, cf. Peter Krentz, “The Ostracism of Thoukydides, son of Melesias,” Historia 33:4 (4th Quarter 1984): 499–504, who thinks that it took place ca. 437, with David J. Phillips, “Men Named Thoukydides and the General of 440/39 BC (Thuc. 1.117.2),” Historia 40:4 (1991): 385–95. In the late 430s, when Pericles and his sons proposed to pay for the construction of a new springhouse, the assembly thanked them for their generosity, then voted public money to cover the expense: IG I³ 49. Incredulity regarding economic analysis: cf. Frost, “Pericles, Thucydides Son of Melesias, and Athenian Politics before the War,” 385–99, reprinted in Frost, Politics and the Athenians, 278–97; Peter A. Brunt, “Free Labor and Public Works at Rome,” JRS 70 (1980): 81–100; and Geoffrey Ernest Maurice de Ste. Croix, The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World: From the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests (London: Duckworth, 1981), 188–97, who cannot believe that anyone in the fifth century could have conceived of economic relations in this fashion, with Stadter, CPP, 153–54, and Lewis, “The Thirty Years’ Peace,” 139–40. We know that fiscal expertise on a considerable scale was expected of the politically ambitious: Rahe, SSAW, Part II, preface. There is no reason why they could not also have developed an awareness of what economic stimulation could accomplish: the fruits were there to be observed in and around the dockyards of Athens. For the materials employed in the building program and the scale and scope of the effort involved, see Manolis Korres, From Pentelicon to the Parthenon (Athens: Melissa, 1995).

30. Pericles’ propagation of a politicized eros: Thuc. 2.43.1–4.

31. Parthenon: Jerome J. Pollitt, “Art: Archaic to Classical,” and Richard E. Wycherley, “Rebuilding in Athens and Attica,” in CAH V² 171–83, 206–22 (esp. 176–78, 215–17). Legend of Erechtheus’ daughter the subject of Ionic frieze: Joan Breton Connelly, The Parthenon Enigma: A New Understanding of the West’s Most Iconic Building and the People Who Made It (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014), 118–209, 229–36.

32. Pericles and Pheidias: Plut. Per. 13 with Stadter, CPP, 163–83. Program of pediments and Doric frieze: Connelly, The Parthenon Enigma, 76–118 (esp. 95–118), 201–2.

33. Architectural spectacle leads to overestimation of Athens’ power: Thuc. 1.10.2.

34. Pericles’ exhortations: Thuc. 2.64.3–5. Athenian self-regard: Jon Hesk, Deception and Democracy in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Ryan K. Balot, Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001); and Matthew R. Christ, The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), and The Limits of Altruism in Democratic Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

35. Lacedaemon’s power apt to be underestimated: Thuc. 1.10.2.

36. Tolmides in Boeotia and on Euboea and Naxos: note 8, above. Cleruchies of this sort were often—and for good reason—deeply resented by the local citizens who were reduced to the status of leaseholders or hirelings: Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz, “Settlers and Dispossessed in the Athenian Empire,” Mnemosyne, 4th series, 57:3 (2004): 325–45, and Alfonso Moreno, “‘The Attic Neighbour’: The Cleruchy in the Athenian Empire,” in Interpreting the Athenian Empire, 211–21.

37. Duel over Delphi: Thuc. 1.112.5, Plut. Per. 21. Cf. Philochorus FGrH 328 F34b, who claims that there was a three-year interval before Athens put the Phocians back in charge, and see Gomme, HCT, I 337–38, and Hornblower, CT, I 181–83. Note also Schol. Ar. Aves 556—from which we have Theopompus of Chios FGrH 115 F156 and Eratosthenes 241 F38 as well as the Philochorus fragment referenced above—and Suda s.v. hıeròs pólemos. See also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F14.1.

38. Pericles’ caution: Plut. Per. 18.2–3, Comp. Per. et Fab. 3.3. Depicted as opponent of land empire: Ste. Croix, OPW, 315–17. Boeotian Orchomenos: IACP no. 213. Chaeronea: IACP no. 201.

39. Chaeronea recovered, defeat near Coronea, evacuation of Boeotia: Thuc. 1.113 (with the scholia), 3.62.4, 4.92.6; Diod. 12.6 (where there is confusion concerning the order of events); Plut. Per. 18.2–3, Comp. Per. et Fab. 3.3; Aristodemus FGrH 104 F14.2. Significance of defeat: Xen. Mem. 3.5.4. The precise location of the battle site or, at least, its proper denomination is disputed: cf. Thuc. 1.113.2, 4.92.6 with Xen. Mem. 3.5.4 and Paus. 1.27.5. Note Plut. Ages. 19.2 with Paus. 9.34.1. No one doubts, however, its rough location. Name of Theban commander: Plut. Ages. 19.2. Role of Orchomenizers: Hellanicus FGrH 4 F81, Theopompus of Chios FGrH 115 F407, Aristophanes of Boeotia FGrH 379 F3. Death of Cleinias: Pl. Alc. I 112c. Grave: Paus. 1.29.14. Thebans later claim victory as their own: Thuc. 3.62.4. Xenophon concurs: Mem. 3.5.4. Note also Thuc. 4.92.6. Cf. Jakob A. O. Larsen, “Orchomenus and the Formation of the Boeotian Confederacy in 447 B.C.,” CPh 55:1 (January 1960): 9–18, and Buck, “The Athenian Domination of Boeotia,” 223–27, who attribute the victory in the main to the citizens of Orchomenos, with Clifford J. Dull, “Thucydides 1.113 and the Leadership of Orchomenus,” CPh 72:4 (October 1977): 305–14, who demonstrates the likelihood that exiles from Thebes played a predominant role; and with Robert J. Buck, A History of Boeotia (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1979), 150–52, and Nancy Demand, Thebes in the Fifth Century: Heracles Resurgent (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982), 35–40, who concur.

40. Epitaph for the fallen blames loss on local divinity: SEG X 410. Statue of Tolmides and seer: Paus. 1.27.5. Theft of war: David Whitehead, “Klope polemou: ‘Theft’ in Ancient Greek Warfare,” C&M 39 (1988): 43–53.

41. As Buck, “The Athenian Domination of Boeotia,” 224–26, and A History of Boeotia, 152–62, insists, the neutrality of the Boeotians is a necessary presumption.

42. Revolt of Chalcis (IACP no. 365), Eretria (IACP no. 370), Histiaea (IACP no. 372), and Carystus on the island of Euboea and of Megara, Pleistoanax invades Attica: Thuc. 1.114.1–2. Note also Aristodemus FGrH 104 F15.2. The Euboean revolt appears to have taken place in 446 after the phóros owed by the cities on the island was delivered to Athens: Gomme, HCT, I 340.

43. Athenians respond to revolt by invading Megarid, defeating the Megarians: Diod. 12.5.2. Pythion rescues Andocides and his men: ML no. 51 = IG I³ 1353 = O&R no. 130. See Gomme, HCT, I 340–41 and Davies, APF no. 828, V.

44. Thucydides on Pleistoanax’ withdrawal, Pericles’ reconquest of Euboea, the Thirty Years’ Peace: 1.114.2–115.1. Note 4.21.3.

45. Details added by Diodorus (12.5.2, 7.1) and Andocides (3.6). See also Aeschin. 2.174, Plut. Mor. 834b (with Ruhnken’s supplement). Callias a Spartan próxenos: Xen. Hell. 6.3.4. I do not believe Diodorus’ chronology defensible: cf., however, Schreiner, Hellanikos, Thukydides and the Era of Kimon, 97–101.

46. Pleistoanax’ invasion, Pericles’ response: Plutarch (Per. 22–23) adds further details. Note Mor. 402a, and see Stadter, CPP, 225–32. On the age of Pleistoanax at this time, see Mary E. White, “Some Agiad Dates: Pausanias and His Sons,” JHS 84 (1964): 140–52 (esp. 140–41). Cleandridas an ephor: Suidas s.v. éphoros. With regard to the bribery of Pleistoanax and Cleandridas, their exile, and Pericles’ justification of the expenditure, see also Thuc. 2.21.1, 5.16.3; Ephorus FGrH 70 F193; Plut. Nic. 28.4; Diod. 13.106.10; Antiochus FGrH 555 F 11–12; Polyaen. Strat. 2.10.1–2, 4–5; Schol. Ar. Nub. 858–59, Suda s.v. déon. On the grounds for the fury directed at the Spartan king and his advisor, see Lendon, SoW, 79–82. Additional evidence for reconquest of Euboea and settlement of affairs on the island: Rahe, SSAW, Chapter 1.

47. Puzzle: Gomme, HCT, II 76. Cf. Ste. Croix, OPW, 196–200, who assumes what none of the sources tells us—that the army which Pericles brought back from Euboea to Attica was at this time safely housed in the city of Athens.

48. Athenians caught in a bind: Thuc. 4.21.3. Euboea Pericles’ principal concern: Ste. Croix, OPW, 198–99.

49. For this suggestion, see M. Phillipides, “King Pleistoanax and the Spartan Invasion of Attica in 446 B.C.,” AW 11 (1985): 33–41.

50. Terms apt to have been discussed by Pleistoanax and Pericles: Meiggs, AE, 181–82.

51. Chilon’s influence: Rahe, SR, Chapter 4, to which I would now add Critias F7 (DK). Spartan moderation: consider Thuc. 8.24.4 in light of 8.40.2, and see Rahe, SR, Chapters 1 and 2.

Epilogue. A Fragile Truce

Epigraph: Adam Ferguson, An Essay on the History of Civil Society, 1767 I.ix, ed. Duncan Forbes (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1966), 59.

1. Terms of the extended truce: Thuc. 1.35.2, 40, 44.1, 45.3, 67.2–4, 78.4, 85.2, 140.2, 141.1, 144.2, 145, 7.18; Diod. 12.7; Paus. 5.23.4. That the guarantee of autonomy did not extend to members of the Delian League other than Aegina is clear from Thuc. 1.144.2. Cf. Badian, Outbreak, 60–67, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 137–42, and Cawkwell, TPW, 23, 129, n. 11, 133, n. 1, with Tim Rood, Thucydides: Narrative and Explanation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 216–19. That a guarantee for Aegina in particular is not unthinkable is evident from Thuc. 5.18.5. Cf., however, Thomas J. Figueira, “Autonomoi kata tas spondas (Thucydides 1.27.2),” BICS 37 (1990): 63–88, reprinted in Figueira, Excursions in Epichoric History: Aiginetan Essays (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993), 255–92, who doubts the Aeginetan claim. One must suppose Thucydides a shameless liar, as I do not, if one is to discount his explicit testimony (1.78.4, 85.2, 140.2, 141.1, 144.2, 145, 7.18.2–3) that there was an arbitration clause: cf. Badian, Outbreak, 67–70, reprinted in Badian, FPP, 142–44. In general, see Meiggs, AE, 182–85, and David M. Lewis, “The Thirty Years’ Peace,” in CAH V² 136–37, who rightly emphasizes the agreement’s temporary character as a truce. Cf. Kagan, Outbreak, 128–30, who thinks otherwise, with Paul A. Rahe, “The Peace of Nicias,” in The Making of Peace, ed. Williamson Murray and James Lacey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 31–69 (esp. 31–59), and “Athens and Sparta,” in Great Strategic Rivalries: From the Classical World to the Cold War, ed. James Lacey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 52–78 (esp. 62–73), as well as Karl Walling, “Thucydides on Policy, Strategy, and War Termination,” Naval War College Review 66:4 (Autumn 2013): 47–85 (esp. 48–49).

2. Dream of lasting peace: Immanuel Kant, “Zum ewigen Frieden: Ein philosophischer Entwurf,” (1796), in Kant, Werke in Zehn Bänden, ed. Wilhelm Weischedel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1971), IX 193–251.

3. Homer the educator of Hellas: Pl. Resp. 10.606e. Primacy of war: Leg. 1.626a.

4. Theft of war: note Thuc. 4.21.3, and consider Lendon, SoW, 78–82, in light of Chapter 6, note 40, in context, above.

5. Corinthian impression: Thuc. 1.70.

6. Significance of the growth in Athenian power: Thuc. 1.23.5–6, 33.2, 88, 118.2–3. Two wars a single conflict: Dion. Hal. Thuc. 10–12.