CHAPTER IV .

THEBES

I.

THE BATTLE OF LEUCTRA

 

WHEN the peace congress of 371 BC broke up the Theban delegates went home in utter despondency. Not only did Thebes now appear in the light of a peace-breaker, but she had no allies left that she could count on. Her hold upon the other Boeotian towns was precarious; her friendship with Jason was of problematic value; her relations with Athens had been further compromised by the recent peace negotiations. On the other hand, the Spartans assured themselves that they would shortly settle accounts with Thebes on their own terms. Under the pretext of enforcing the peace upon the recalcitrant Thebans they could now resume their invasion of Boeotia, and in the next campaign they knew that Athens would maintain at least an attitude of friendly neutrality. In confident expectation of a complete victory they spoke of settling the Boeotian question once for all by treating Thebes as they had previously dealt with Mantinea. The very existence of Thebes as a city was now at stake.

Such was the eagerness of the Spartans to follow up their advantage that they did not wait to observe the formalities of the recent peace convention, which stipulated that they must first obtain the free consent of their allies before they mobilized them in execution of the peace terms. Without further consultations they ordered King Cleombrotus, who was again stationed in Phocis with a composite force of Peloponnesians and Central Greeks, to ascertain whether the Thebans were still acting in contravention of the peace by retaining their hold on the other Boeotian cities, and if so, to invade their territory forthwith.

The Spartan king, finding that the Boeotian League had not wound itself up, and that a federal Boeotian force was ready to receive him in the defile of Coronea, advanced by a coast track which had been left unguarded, and scored a preliminary success by capturing the naval arsenal at Creusis and twelve Theban men-of-war. From this point he turned inland and reached the edge of the Theban plain at Leuctra. Here he found himself con­fronted by the Boeotian levy, which had the advantage of operating on inner lines and was thus able to retrieve its initial strategic defeat (July-August 371).

The Boeotian generals were at first divided in their opinions as to the wisdom of accepting battle, but eventually decided to fight. Their forces were, if anything, fewer, and the contingents of some of the Boeotian towns were of doubtful loyalty. On the other hand, if they declined battle there was a danger that the Boeotian League might dissolve of its own accord, and that the people of Thebes would cry out for peace rather than submit to another invasion and loss of further harvests. Moreover, since the victory of Tegyra, the Theban commanders had reason to believe that Theban troops could win battles even against considerable odds, and two of their representatives on the board of Boeotarchs, Pelopidas and Epaminondas, strongly favoured a fighting policy, for they not only grasped the necessity of waging a battle but saw the means of winning it.

The field of Leuctra, on which the Boeotians accepted Cleombrotus’ challenge, was a level and unimpeded plain of some 1000 yards in width, extending between two low ridges on which the opposing armies lay encamped: an ideal battle-ground for hoplite forces. Cleombrotus’ army was arrayed in the usual fashion, with the Spartan contingent standing twelve deep on the right wing. On the Boeotian side the Theban division was drawn up in an unusually deep formation of fifty ranks and took station opposite the Spartan forces, so that the best troops on either side might engage at once without having to hunt each other across the battlefield. This disposition was probably due to Epaminondas, a comparatively untried general but an accomplished battle-thinker.

The action opened with a cavalry duel. The Spartans, who had done nothing to remedy the defects revealed in their horse by the Asiatic and Chalcidic campaigns, had only an improvised troop to oppose to the well mounted and well trained Theban horsemen, and were flung back by these upon their own infantry. The Spartan line had scarcely been reformed before the Theban infantry, with the Sacred Band at its head and the victorious cavalry acting as a flank guard, broke in upon it. For a while the Spartan foot held firm, but the cumulative pressure of the deep Theban column eventually carried it off its feet. By this encounter the battle was won and lost along the whole front. As soon as the Spartans gave ground, their allies in the centre and left wing fell back without waiting for the Boeotian centre and right to follow up the onset of the Thebans. The action of Leuctra was not a big battle even according to Greek standards. The total number of troops actually engaged probably did not exceed 10,000, and the duration of the combat must have been brief. In spite of its heavy casualties, which included King Cleombrotus and 400 out of the 700 Spartan citizens on the field, the defeated army made an orderly retreat, and the Theban pursuit stopped short under the steep bluffs on which the Spartan camp was perched. Yet Leuctra opened a new chapter in military history, because of the novelty of Epaminondas’ tactics. This novelty did not consist in the deepening of the Theban column so as to form a phalanx or ‘roller’: such formations had been used by the Thebans in several previous actions, though no doubt the earlier phalanxes did not move with such precision as the corps d'élite which Pelopidas and his colleagues had trained. Neither can the disposition of the Boeotian line en échelon be regarded as an important innovation, though such an oblique alignment might serve to correct the tendency of Greek battle fronts to slew round against the clock. More importance attaches to the close co-operation between foot and horse which subsequently became a characteristic of Macedonian battle-tactics. But the originality of Epaminondas’ tactics lay chiefly in the choice of his point of attack: he had discovered the master principle that the quickest and most economical way of winning a military decision is to defeat the enemy not at his weakest but at his strongest point.

Judged by its immediate political results, Leuctra had no particular importance, but viewed in the light of its ultimate consequences, it forms a landmark in political no less than in military history. At Sparta government and people alike bore up under the shock of unexpected disaster with perfect calm. The last available troops were mobilized under Agesilaus’ son Archidamus and in face of this display of firmness Sparta’s allies made no premature move. In central and northern Greece the Thebans were disappointed in their hope of setting a snowball rolling. The Athenians made no attempt to conceal their chagrin at Thebes’ victory and treated the messenger of ‘good news’ with ostentatious rudeness. The attitude of Jason, though far more loyal, was hardly more helpful. The Thessalian ruler lost no time in coming to the help of the Thebans: though it is not clear whether he was already on the march before the battle of Leuctra, he certainly made a rapid journey through the hostile Phocian country and arrived in the Theban camp shortly after the combat. The Thebans at once invited him to join them in the attack upon the Spartan camp before Archidamus should have come up. But Jason declined the offer. Whether he was secretly jealous of the Thebans’ triumph, or whether, as seems more likely, the reinforcements which he brought with him were not sufficiently numerous to carry the strong Spartan position, he tamely advised his allies to evict their enemy by diplomacy rather than by force of arms. Having negotiated a truce which allowed the Spartans to evacuate Boeotia without further molestation, Jason concluded that the campaign was at an end and withdrew as suddenly as he had come.

On his return to Thessaly Jason dismantled the fortress of Heraclea, thus indicating that he intended to keep open the passage between northern and central Greece. In the ensuing year he made great preparations for a visit to Delphi, where he proposed to preside over the Pythian festival due to be held in September 370, and in anticipation of resistance to his progress by the Phocians he called out a federal Thessalian levy. While we may safely reject the alarmist rumour that his real purpose was to plunder the Delphic temple treasures, we must accept the general Greek tradition that he had some ulterior object in view. According to Isocrates Jason had in mind a crusade against Persia. It is possible that he intended to make a formal announcement to this effect and to invite the co-operation of the other Greek states at the Pythian festival. Failing this, we may conjecture that he proposed to reconstitute the Delphic Amphictyony as an instrument of Thessalian ascendancy in Central Greece. But whatever his precise purpose at Delphi, it is evident that Jason regarded his dominion in Thessaly as a base for the conquest of a wider world, and in view of his untiring energy and great diplomatic ability he might well have anticipated Philip of Macedon in constructing a United States of Greece, had his life been spared. But before he set out from Pherae he was struck dead by some conspirators whose motives have never come to light.

While Athens held aloof and Jason fought for his own hand, it appeared that Thebes had won a barren triumph at Leuctra. Yet the effects of her victory presently showed through. Archidamus, who had fallen in with the remnants of Cleombrotus’ army in the Megarid, made no attempt to retrieve the campaign but retired to Corinth and disbanded his force. After his departure the Thebans obtained a free hand in Central Greece and proceeded to recover their supremacy in that region. Orchomenus, which had asserted its independence since 395, rejoined the Boeotian League, only to repent of its submission a few years later and suffer destruction for its infidelity (364). The Locrians and Aetolians also resumed their alliance with Thebes, and even the Phocians came to terms (371-70).

 

II. 

THEBAN ASCENDANCY IN NORTHERN GREECE

 

The death of Jason, who must have acted as a check on Thebes’ expansion had his programme at Delphi been carried out, gave the Thebans an opportunity of embracing all Central Greece under their protectorate. The small states of the Spercheus valley transferred their allegiance from Pherae to them, and the fortress of Nicaea, which subsequently served the Thebans as the key to Thermopylae, may have been founded by them on this occasion. At the same time the Euboeans in the east and the Acarnanians in the west deserted the Athenian Confederacy and threw in their lot with Thebes. To consolidate their recent gains the Thebans created a new confederation of Central Greek states. This League was ostensibly designed for common defence, but in actual fact it served as an instrument for fresh Theban conquests.

The ascendancy acquired by Thebes in Central Greece was reflected in the history of Delphi in the ensuing years. The Thebans did not, as it seems, take any great part in the reconstruction of the temple of Apollo, which had been severely damaged towards the end of the ’seventies by an earthquake, or more probably by the flooding of a subterranean stream. But they set up a special treasure-house to contain the trophies of Leuctra; and they exerted their power on the Amphictyonic Council by inducing that body to impose a belated fine on Sparta for the illegal seizure of Thebes in 382, and to banish from Delphi a faction of local residents who had manifested sympathy with Athens (363 BC).

Shortly after the formation of the Central Greek Confederacy the Thebans began to carry their arms beyond the limits of Central Greece. In Thessaly, Theban intervention was presently invited by the political chaos into which Jason’s death plunged that country. At Pherae the dominion of Jason’s family was so well consolidated that it withstood an epidemic of sudden deaths within its ranks. Of Jason’s brothers, Polyphron slew Polydorus (370), and was in turn slain by a third brother or a nephew named Alexander (369). The last usurper established himself firmly in Jason’s stead and even went as far as to issue coins bearing his own name. But while Jason’s successors retained Pherae, they lost the other Thessalian towns, and the title of ‘tagus’ which each in turn assumed carried no legal authority and no effective power. In their unavailing attempts to retain or recover the rest of Thessaly the rulers of Pherae displayed such ruthlessness that they drove the other cities to call in foreign aid against them. Polyphron had recourse to wholesale banishments at Larissa and put to death Polydamas, whose willing submission to Jason had made Pharsalus safe for the rulers of Pherae; but his record of frightfulness was quite eclipsed by Alexander, whose lust of cruelty appears to have bordered on insanity. In 368 the Aleuadae of Larissa, who had thrown open the gates of Thessaly to Archelaus of Macedon some thirty years previously, once more invoked Macedonian aid against the power of Pherae. The Macedonian king Alexander II (369—8), who had but recently succeeded his father Amyntas, at once came to the rescue and occupied both Larissa and Crannon with a military force; but like Archelaus before him he kept these towns for himself as prizes of war. Once more the parts of Thessaly and Macedon were reversed, the suzerainty of Jason being replaced by a Macedonian domination. Alexander’s usurpation did not raise up another Thrasymachus to proclaim a Greek crusade against a ‘barbarian ’ invader, but the Thessalian cities which lay between the millstones of Macedon and Pherae looked about in their turn for assistance from abroad. In 399 they had applied to Sparta; they now asked for Theban intervention.

At the time when this appeal was made (summer 369), the Thebans were already committed to other foreign adventures, but they raised a small expeditionary force and entrusted it to Pelopidas, who henceforth made Thessalian affairs his special province. In his first Thessalian campaign Pelopidas evidently considered that Macedon, not Pherae, was the point of danger, for his first care was to safeguard the country against Macedonian encroachments. Having wrested Crannon and Larissa from King Alexander, he tendered his good offices in a dispute which had arisen between the Macedonian monarch and one of his chief barons, Ptolemy of Alorus, and thus disarmed the king’s hostility. So little did Pelopidas fear Alexander of Pherae at this stage that he endeavoured to procure for him the legal authority of a ‘tagus’ by amicable arrangement with the other Thessalians, and when Alexander refused to guarantee the rights of the other cities he made no attempt to coerce him but left the issue in suspense.

In the ensuing year (368) the Macedonian settlement of Pelopidas was overthrown by Ptolemy, who murdered King Alexander and established himself as regent on behalf of Alexander’s brother Perdiccas. But Ptolemy in turn was beset by a fresh pretender and found himself compelled to accept a new settlement at the hands of Pelopidas, despite the fact that the Theban envoy had been sent out without an army at his back. The Macedonian regent renounced all claims on Thessaly and gave hostages for his future behaviour. Among these hostages was the late king’s younger brother Philip, who subsequently proved that Thebes had been a school as well as a prison house to him.

Pelopidas’ second Macedonian settlement outlived the ensuing vicissitudes of the Macedonian dynasty: not till Philip became king did Thebes or Thessaly have anything further to fear from Macedon. The success of his negotiations emboldened Pelopidas on his return to seek an interview with Alexander of Pherae, in the hope that this ruler would now see reason. But Alexander repaid Pelopidas’ trustfulness by taking him prisoner. This treacherous act meant war for Thebes. But the despot of Pherae had previously assured himself of support from Athens, and with the help of an Athenian auxiliary corps he waged a successful guerilla war against a large force which the Thebans sent to retrieve Pelopidas. Cut off from all supplies, the invading army had to beat a retreat which would probably have ended in disaster, had the soldiers not deposed their generals and thrust the command upon Epaminondas, who was serving at that time in the ranks. Epaminondas led his comrades safely home. In the following year he received official command of a fresh relief force which compelled Alexander to surrender Pelopidas and renounce his recent conquest of Pharsalus (spring 367). But neither Epaminondas nor Pelopidas at this time attempted a general Thessalian settlement.

In the following years Alexander was left free to resume his conquests in eastern and southern Thessaly, but the wholesale terrorism which he practised upon the vanquished encouraged the remaining cities to prolong their resistance. In 364 Alexander’s enemies again turned to Thebes for succour. The Thebans resolved to interfere in force; but an untimely eclipse of the sun (13 July 364) gave them an excuse for backing out. Pelopidas, the appointed leader of the expedition, nevertheless marched out with a skeleton force of 300 mounted volunteers, which he re­inforced as best he could with Thessalian levies. With this scratch army he attacked Alexander on the ridge of Cynoscephalae, and despite the far superior numbers of Alexander, who had recently recruited a powerful infantry corps, hurled his opponent off the crest. During the pursuit the Theban general threw away his life in a rash attempt to slay Alexander with his own hand, but his Theban horsemen completed the rout of Alexander’s forces. A second Theban army which was dispatched  shortly after (autumn 364) to avenge Pelopidas’ death found nothing to do but to receive Alexander’s surrender. The would-be ‘tagus’ of Thessaly was restricted to the possession of his native Pherae and became a subject-ally of Thebes in company with the Achaeans and Magnesian borderers who had previously been under his yoke. The other Thessalian cities were grouped into four cantons recalling the ‘tetrades’ of early Thessalian history; but for purposes of foreign policy they were combined into a single confederation under an official carrying the new name of ‘archon.’ This confederation no doubt was intended to owe allegiance to Thebes no less than Alexander. But while Alexander duly performed his obligations and even made war upon his former Athenian allies, the Thessalian Confederacy presently leagued itself with Athens against Alexander (361). Thus Thebes fell short of acquiring complete control over Thessaly, and her interest in Thessalian affairs, which had never been more than spasmodic, did not long survive Pelopidas.

 

III. 

THE DISRUPTION OF THE PELOPONNESIAN LEAGUE

 

The same desultory and therefore ineffective policy was adopted by the Thebans in their dealings with the Peloponnese. In this district the withdrawal of Sparta’s ‘harmosts’ and garrisons by the terms of the peace of 371 gave promise of better relations between Sparta and her allies. The pax Peloponnesiaca was further confirmed by a new compact which the signatories of the peace (with the insignificant exception of Elis) made after the battle of Leuctra, pledging themselves to support the settlement of 371 against all comers. This compact constituted a great triumph for Athens, at whose instance it had been formed, for she now stood at the head of a mainland league. To the Greeks in general it offered a basis for a wider settlement, for given a reasonably free hand in Boeotia and Central Greece, the Thebans could hardly have refused to honour it.

But the memory of Sparta’s past oppressions could not be obliterated in an instant, and the arbitrary manner in which she had rushed her allies into the campaign of Leuctra could only serve to revive it. The spell of Sparta’s military prestige, which had been for centuries the chief safeguard of the Peloponnesian peace, was broken once for all by the disaster of Leuctra. At the news of that battle, the Peloponnese was thrown into a ferment which broke all bonds of past tradition and of diplomatic obligations. At Corinth and Sicyon, where the interests of industry and commerce apparently acted as a restraining force, the conservative parties repelled all attacks upon the constitution and maintained friendly relations with Sparta. But the agrarian communities of the Central Peloponnese were swept along in a general political upheaval. At Argos, where demagogues had raised the cry of ‘treason’, the masses perpetrated wholesale executions of oligarchic suspects and finished in the best style of the French Revolution by rending their own champions. The Eleans proceeded to the reconquest of the subject districts lost in 399 and at once recovered the lower Alpheus valley.

But the most momentous revolution took place in Arcadia, which now for the first and last time became the centre of Peloponnesian politics. As might have been expected, the villages into which Sparta had dissected Mantinea again coalesced into a city (spring 370): the stone foundations of the new ring wall, which was strengthened with towers and overlapping curtains at each gate, are still visible. But a far greater scheme of reconstruction was initiated by the anti-Spartan party at Tegea, which proposed the gathering of the several Arcadian communities into a new confederation. Tegea itself the federalists only carried their point by sheer force, but elsewhere they met with general support, and only Orchomenus and Heraea stood out. The Arcadian federation was composed of a general assembly (the ‘Ten Thousand’), to which all Arcadian freemen had access, and of a council to which each constituent community sent its quota of delegates. A standing federal army of 5000 men was subsequently recruited among the numerous Arcadian soldiers of fortune who had hitherto taken service under foreign banners, and was placed under the command of the ‘strategus’, the chief federal official. To pay these mercenaries a special federal coinage was struck. No permanent federal capital appears to have been chosen at the outset.

The formation of the Arcadian League out of a far-flung group of communities whom geography and history alike had sundered was a considerable achievement, and had the League’s government been wiser it might have taken Sparta’s place as the stabilizer of the Peloponnese. But from the first the League proved a storm-centre. Hardly had it been established than it tried to coerce Orchomenus and Heraea into membership (autumn 370). This action, which constituted a clear breach of the recent compact with Athens, caused the Spartans in turn to violate the agreement by taking the field against Arcadia without consulting their allies. The Athenian league of peace thus died a sudden death, and in its stead a war coalition was formed. In reply to Sparta’s aggres­sion the Arcadians entered into compacts with Argos and Elis, both of whom had old accounts to settle with Sparta. From Athens, whose pacific efforts they had just nullified, they received a rebuff. But their overtures to Thebes, which the Eleans backed up with a loan of money, brought a new and formidable ally into the field.

At Thebes the victory of Leuctra, by removing the menace of foreign invasion, had opened the door to party strife. The small proprietors who had no doubt suffered most under invasion now desired to ‘rest and be thankful.’ But to Pelopidas and Epaminondas Leuctra was the beginning rather than the end. They took it for granted that their victory must be followed up, and they did not stop to think whether Thebes commanded the requisite prestige or force to become an empire-maker as well as an empire-breaker. In 370 their personal ascendancy, though declining, was still strong enough to secure acceptance of the Arcadians’ suit, and they were presently sent out with a force which contained contingents from all Central Greece and from Thessaly. The mere arrival of this army in Arcadia caused King Agesilaus, who had been operating not without success against Mantinea, to evacuate the country (autumn 370). Orchomenus and Heraea now joined the League, and the primary object of Thebes’ expedition was fulfilled. But the Arcadians and other peoples of the Central Peloponnese, who considered that the present opportunity for territorial aggrandizement and for plundering the virgin lands of Laconia was too good to be lost, clamoured for an advance into enemy country, and they drew their allies into a new midwinter campaign.

The task which Epaminondas, the allies’ commander-in-chief, had undertaken was none of the easiest. Besides the difficulty of co-ordinating the movements of some 50,000 men advancing through unfamiliar mountain country on winter roads which were probably snow-bound, he was beset with endless wranglings among the officers of his ill-assorted coalition. Nevertheless his march upon Sparta was executed with admirable precision. The Arcadians, Central Greeks and Argives moved by three converging routes to Caryae, and proceeded thence along the Oenus valley to Sellasia, where the Elean contingent fell in. The united force then slipped past Sparta and gained the right bank of the Eurotas below the city. As the invaders passed through Laconia con­siderable bodies of Helots and even of Perioeci joined them, and inside Sparta, disaffected citizens, presumably of the inferior class, hatched more than one conspiracy. Considering that Sparta was not fortified, we cannot doubt that Epaminondas could have forced his way in. But the price of entrance was higher than he cared to pay. Under the leadership of Agesilaus, whose long experience and sound nerve never showed to better advantage, the Spartans had prepared a hot reception for the invaders. The enemies within the gates had been detected and summarily suppressed; by a timely promise of emancipation numerous loyal Helots had been induced to take up arms; and before Epaminondas could press home his attack a strong corps from the Isthmus states slipped through the invading army and threw itself into the city. Moreover, as Sparta’s defences grew stronger, Epaminondas’ effectives steadily dwindled, for nothing could prevent the Arcadians from straggling for plunder. Unable to lure his adversary into the open, and unwilling to acquire Sparta at a prohibitive cost, Epaminondas eventually withdrew his forces and after a rapid raid on the Laconian shipyards at Gytheum retired to Arcadia. Thus Sparta weathered the sudden crisis and postponed by some 150 years the day of capitulation to an invader.

Nevertheless the campaign of 370—69 left a lasting mark upon Peloponnesian history. Before returning home Epaminondas paid a visit to Mt Ithome, the natural citadel of Messenia, and there laid the foundations of a new city of Messene which was to be at once the stronghold and the capital of a new Messenian state. In addition to the revolted Helots and Perioeci of Messenia and Laconia, Epaminondas invited all Messenian refugees abroad to become citizens of the new commonwealth. For the construction of the town and its ring wall Epaminondas engaged the best craftsmen of Greece: from the proceeds of the rich booty of Laconia he could afford to defray a heavy builders’ bill. The fortifications of Messene, which enclosed a wide enceinte, were erected in finely wrought ashlar: their remains furnish one of the best extant specimens of Greek military architecture. So impregnable was this fastness that the Spartans apparently made no attempt to attack it: with the exception of a few places on the south coast, Messenia was now definitely freed from Spartan domination. Thus the Spartans lost at one blow almost one half of their territory and more than half of their serfs. Dearth of land and labour henceforth reduced their population more effectively than the wastage of war, and the economic basis of their military supremacy was shattered.

Although Epaminondas had crowded all the incidents of his campaign into a space of a few months, his return home was now long overdue. A further reason for a speedy retreat was imposed upon him by the appearance of a hostile force under Iphicrates in Arcadia. Unable at first to take a new alignment in the chaos of Peloponnesian politics, the Athenians had finally decided that they must establish a front against Theban imperialism. In response to an appeal for aid from Sparta they dispatched their full citizen levy to intercept the Theban retreat (spring 369). This force, it is true, consisted mainly of recruits whom Iphicrates dared not pit against Epaminondas’ veterans, and it did not even contest the Isthmus passage against the Thebans. But it served at any rate to speed the parting guests, and it prevented them from leaving garrisons to hold open for them the gates of the Peloponnese.

On their return to Thebes Epaminondas and Pelopidas were greeted with an impeachment for exceeding the terms of their commission, which probably had limited them to defensive action on behalf of Elis and Arcadia. The trial, which was presumably held before the federal court of Boeotia, ended in an acquittal and the reinstatement of both generals.

In summer 369 Pelopidas, as we have seen, entered upon a new field of conquest in Thessaly. At the same time Epaminondas was sent to conduct a second campaign in the Peloponnese, where Sparta’s enemies, unable to combine effectively among each other, and threatened by the new alliance between Sparta and Athens, had again applied to Thebes for assistance. Despite their fresh commitments in Thessaly, the Thebans sent a confederate force of Central Greeks under Epaminondas to restore contact with the Central Peloponnesians. In anticipation of this move the Athenians had re-occupied the Isthmus lines and had strengthened their garrison with a Spartan division which had been brought across by sea. Thus Epaminondas encountered at the outset a line of defences which in the Corinthian War had proved almost impregnable. But by a surprise attack on the western sector, where the garrison displayed a negligence unusual among Spartan troops, Epaminondas easily carried the position. Once through the Isthmus lines he speedily joined hands with the Arcadians, Argives and Eleans and with their assistance carried the harbour towns of Sicyon and Pellene, thus securing a naval line of communication with the Peloponnese.

It was probably during this visit to the Peloponnese that Epaminondas founded a second city destined to fulfil, like Messene, the double function of a fortress and a political capital. At the head of the Alpheus valley, on the thoroughfare from Laconia to western Arcadia and Elis, he marked out a site for a Megale Polis or ‘Great City,’ which was to serve as a place of assembly for the Arcadian federation and a frontier barrier against Spartan reprisals. The area of this site, which exceeded even that of Messene, was divided by the river Helisson into two separate portions. The southern sector was the meeting-place of the federal congress, and in addition to temporary accommodation for participants in the assembly it probably contained the permanent quarters of the standing federal army. Excavations conducted by British scholars in 1890—have shown that the theatre, where the Assembly met, and the Thersilion or Council Hall, were planned on a most generous scale, suggesting that the founders of Megalopolis (as the city was usually called) were sanguine of obtaining good attendances at the congress. The northern sector was probably set apart as the permanent dwelling-place of the population from some twenty neighbouring villages which was induced or coerced to migrate into the city. As Megalopolis received a double share of representation on the federal council, we may assume that its permanent population was intended to grow far beyond that of the other Arcadian communities.

The foundation of Megalopolis completed the overthrow of Sparta’s old ascendancy in the Peloponnese, for it provided the last link in the fortress chain extending from Argos through Tegea or Mantinea to Messene, by which Sparta henceforth was hemmed in securely. But the same act also undermined the new ascendancy of Thebes. Secure in the possession of their new fortress capital, the Arcadians no longer felt the need of a Theban protectorate and indeed began to resent it as a bar to their own claim to supremacy in the Peloponnese.

 

IV.

THE DIPLOMATIC FAILURES OF THEBES

 

The full effects of Epaminondas’ second campaign in the Peloponnese declared themselves in the following year. At the end of 369 BC the Thebans expressed their disappointment at the negative result of the summer’s operations by not re-electing Epaminondas and by suspending their operations in the Peloponnese. On the other hand, the Arcadians, whose new standing army was available for field service in all seasons, began single-handed a new war of conquest. Led by Lycomedes of Mantinea, who had been the first to proclaim the defiant doctrine, ‘Arcadia farà da se,’ they made distant forays to the Messenian seaboard and seized the border lands of Lasion and Triphylia in defiance of the Eleans. The conquest and annexation of these latter territories, soon led to recriminations between the Eleans and their aggressors, and the erection of an Arcadian war monument at Delphi, in which a figure of ‘Triphylus’ was exhibited among Arcadia’s ancestral heroes, was an additional insult to the injured people.

But Arcadia’s war fever was no true index of the general state of feeling in Greece. The other belligerents had mostly come to realize that they could hardly hope to secure fresh gains or to retrieve past losses. This war weariness, moreover, did not escape the notice of certain bystanders who wished to demobilize the belligerents in order to attract to their own service the mercenary troops thus set free. Among these interested brokers of peace was Dionysius of Syracuse, who had demonstrated his loyalty to his old Spartan allies by sending them a small corps of Gaulish and Spanish mercenaries to assist in the campaign of 369, yet was more anxious to bargain than to fight for them. His peace manifestos met with a prompt response among the Athenians, who conferred Attic franchise upon him (June 368) and awarded the first prize at the Lenaea of 367 to a play from his pen; but it is not certain whether his envoys actually contributed to bringing the parties together. Another peace offensive was opened by Philiscus of Abydos, an emissary of the Persian satrap Ariobarzanes, who was charged with the recruitment of a Greek ‘foreign legion’ and engaged in peace conversations as a means towards this end. Thanks to Philiscus’ good offices a peace congress was held at Delphi which appears to have been attended by all the Greek belligerents (early 368). But a good opportunity for a general settlement was thrown away by the Spartans, who claimed the restitution of Messenia and even, if tradition is to be believed, raised anew their obsolete objections to the Boeotian League.

The firm attitude adopted by Sparta at the congress was probably due to the expectation of further help from Dionysius, who actually sent a fresh contingent to the Peloponnese in the spring of 368, besides contracting a formal alliance with Athens. With the assistance of Dionysius’ corps the Spartans resumed the offensive in the campaign of 367 and advanced close upon Megalopolis. This expedition nearly ended in disaster, for the Argives and Messenians came to the rescue of the Arcadians, and the Spartans found their retreat cut off. But their commander Archidamus kept his nerve; by a bold and unexpected charge he not only cleared his path with little loss to himself but inflicted heavy casualties upon his adversaries. The news of this ‘Tearless Battle’ broke down that stoic Spartan reserve which had stood proof against all recent disasters; in spite of its name, the victory was celebrated at Sparta with hysterical sobbings. Nevertheless the campaign of 367 left everything as before. The death of Dionysius, which occurred in the course of the year, deprived Sparta of a powerful if not very effective ally, and apart from one small contingent which he supplied in 365, his son Dionysius II rendered no further assistance.

In the winter of 367—6 the scene of war was transferred to the Great King’s palace at Susa, where delegates of the Greek belligerents fought a vigorous diplomatic campaign for Persia’s support. The ball was set rolling by the Spartans, who sent Antalcidas to renew his ill-famed but profitable compact of 386. To counteract Antalcidas’ influence the Thebans dispatched Pelopidas, shortly after his release from custody at Pherae. The Athenians and Thebes’ Peloponnesian allies followed suit. The honours of the day went to Pelopidas, who made a favourable personal impression and had an easy case to plead, in view of Thebes’ past record of medism. As spoils of victory Pelopidas brought home a royal rescript ordaining that the Spartans should renounce Messenia and the Athenians should lay up their war­ships.

The first impression which this declaration made among Thebes’ adversaries was so painful that the Athenians put to death one of their envoys and Antalcidas anticipated execution by committing suicide. The Thebans resolved to take advantage of this consternation by bluffing their opponents into an immediate acceptance of Persia’s terms. Having summoned a general congress at Thebes, they invited the delegates to swear to the peace there and then (early in 366). But this manoeuvre failed completely. On further reflection the Greek belligerents had realized that the Persian king was in no position to enforce his recommendations, as he had been in 386. At the congress Lycomedes, the Arcadian deputy, took his usual independent line and flatly denied Thebes’ right to dictate a settlement. By this action he killed the congress, and a subsequent attempt by the Thebans to salvage their peace by separate bargainings with their adversaries met with no better fate.

In the meantime the Thebans overreached themselves in another political deal which nullified the results of a successful military campaign. After a year’s deliberate abstention from Peloponnesian affairs they had undertaken a third campaign in the Peloponnese at the instigation of Epaminondas, who had recovered his influence after his recent successes in Thessaly (summer 367). Epaminondas’ objective was the coastline of Achaea, the possession of which would go a long way to convert the Corinthian Gulf into a Theban lake. His personal prestige sufficed, as usual, to rally the wavering loyalty of the central Peloponnesians. The decisive stroke in the campaign was dealt by the Argives, who cleared a passage through the Isthmus lines by a rear attack upon the Spartan and Athenian garrisons. Once inside the Peloponnese, Epaminondas had an easy task. With the reinforcements which presently poured in from all his Peloponnesian allies he gathered so strong a force that the Achaean league submitted to him without a combat and was enrolled as ally of Thebes. But in the year following, upon the Theban expedition a political blunder converted its victory into a defeat. Epaminondas, who was a loyal but not a fanatic democrat, had consistently ignored the harsh law by which the Thebans had ordered all captured Boeotian refugees to be put to death, and in Achaea he had refused to overthrow the existing oligarchies on the abstract ground that such governments normally sympathized with Sparta. But the Theban democracy, with doctrinaire zeal, cancelled his capitulations and sent ‘harmosts’ to Achaea to effect democratic revolutions. This high-handed policy, which recalled the worst days of Spartan imperialism, was all the more foolish, as Thebes could spare no troops to garrison Achaea. A counter-revolution by the oligarchic exiles presently swept the new democracies away, and the restored oligarchs played up to the part which Thebes had imposed upon them by making alliance with Sparta. For this failure it was but a meagre compensation that the Thebans recovered the border town of Oropus from the Athenians (summer 366) and defeated an attempt by a turncoat demagogue named Euphron to expel their garrison from Sicyon.

A further diplomatic defeat was inflicted upon Thebes towards the end of 366 by the conclusion of an alliance between Athens and Arcadia. This compact was the work of Thebes’ old antagonist Lycomedes, who rightly calculated that the Athenians would resume their broken relations with Arcadia in order to separate her from Thebes. It was not concluded without protest from the Thebans, who sent Epaminondas to the federal Arcadian congress to measure his eloquence against that of the Athenian Callistratus. But Lycomedes carried the day, and, though he died shortly after, he lived long enough to secure the ratification of the alliance at Athens.

It now remained to be seen whether the Athenians would resume the part of arbitrators in the Peloponnese which they had played for a brief moment after Leuctra. The Arcadian treaty was a handsome testimonial to a power which appeared to be alone able to offer alliances on a basis of genuine autonomy. But the Athenians promptly belied their reputation by a piece of sharp practice that recalled the exploits of Phoebidas and Sphodrias. The better to secure the Isthmus lines against fresh surprises, they resolved to appropriate Corinth as the Argives had done in the Corinthian War, but instead of taking over the city by agreement they attempted to carry it by a coup de main. But with an artlessness that did little credit to their knavery they allowed their project to be mentioned quite openly in the Assembly. The Corinthians of course got wind of the plot. Politely but firmly they refused admittance at Cenchreae to an Athenian fleet which presently arrived ‘to assist Corinth against her secret enemies,’ and ushered the existing Athenian garrison out of the Isthmus lines.

But the Corinthians had only steered clear of Charybdis to run foul of Scylla. Having taken over the entire Isthmus defences, they confided this service to a citizen named Timophanes, who promptly betrayed his trust by making himself tyrant. Fortunately the mercenary corps which was the instrument of Timophanes’ power played false in turn to its master, for they allowed him to be assassinated by a few patriots under the leadership of the tyrant’s brother Timoleon. The Corinthians thus recovered their liberty, but after their double surprise they decided to contract out of a war which was degenerating into mere brigandage and opened negotiations with Thebes. Though pressed to transfer themselves to the Theban side and thus to obtain revenge against Athens, they refused to turn their arms against their former allies, and before breaking away from their old confederates they endeavoured to obtain the inclusion of Sparta in the peace. The Spartans rejected the good offices of Corinth rather than abandon their claim to Messenia. Indeed the war for the possession of this land was henceforth waged with pen no less than sword. A famous rhetorician Alcidamas of Elaea supported Messenia’s independence on a principle which only Euripides had dared to enunciate before him, that ‘freedom was the birthright of all mankind.’ On the other side Isocrates entered the lists with a pamphlet which urged the Spartans to evacuate their city for the time being and to entrench themselves on some Laconian Mt Ithome rather than give away their heritage. Thus Sparta stood aloof from the peace. But the Corinthians signed it with a clear conscience. At the same time too they secured a settlement for the minor states of Argolis such as Epidaurus, and for the little fortress of Phlius, which had hitherto stood valiantly by Sparta in spite of the incessant attacks from Argos, Arcadia and Sicyon (winter 366—5).

 

V. 

THE FAILURE OF ARCADIAN IMPERIALISM

 

The war-weariness to which Corinth succumbed gave promise that the fighting would flicker out on each successive battle-front. But the fires had been damped down without being extinguished, and the spluttering of a few live embers presently caused them to flare up again. In 365, after several years of quiescence, the Eleans determined to enforce a clause in the Persian rescript of 367—6 which awarded to them the debatable lands on the Arcadian border. The Arcadians retaliated vigorously, and with the help of a contingent from Athens, which had recognized the casus foederis, beat the Eleans out of the field and invaded their territory. Though they failed to take the capital they permanently occupied Olympia and Pylos, thus securing access to the plains of the Alpheus and Peneus, and systematically harried the Elean low­lands. The Eleans now cast about for allies and successively enlisted the Achaeans and the Spartans. The Achaeans threw a garrison into the city of Elis, and a Spartan force under Archidamus made a sudden foray into Arcadian territory and fortified a position at Cromnus which threatened Megalopolis (late in 365 or early in 364). The Arcadians in turn invoked their allies. The Athenians, who had stipulated that they should not serve against Sparta, held back; but the Argives and Messenians came to the rescue, and the Thebans, who had also received a call, seized the opportunity of reasserting their influence and sent a small con­tingent. This coalition only kept the field long enough to reduce Cromnus and take prisoner its garrison, but by this success they set the Arcadians free to round upon the Eleans, who had meanwhile done nothing to assist the hard-pressed Spartans at Cromnus (spring 364). Reinforced by an Argive and Athenian corps, the Arcadians strengthened their defences at Olympia; and they induced the people of the surrounding region of Pisatis to setmthemselves up as a ‘Panama Republic,’ and to assume the custody of the Olympian sanctuary and of the quadrennial games that fell due in midsummer 364. The new stewards of the course attracted sufficient competitors to make up the usual events, and although an Elean force interrupted proceedings by an unexpected attack upon the sacred enclosure, this intrusion was repelled, and the games were concluded under Pisatan auspices.

The Eleans had now been fought to a standstill; and as the Spartans made no further move after their mishap at Cromnus, the Arcadians held their conquests unmolested. Their seizure of the Olympic sanctuary does not appear to have made any deep impression upon Greece; moreover, their claim that Pisatis had formerly been an independent state and was the original trustee of the holy places was probably quite well founded. But the dominion which the Arcadians exercised in Olympia through their Pisatan men-of-straw exposed them to a dangerous temptation. The regular army which had been the instrument of their recent conquests was an expensive luxury. It is probable that from the outset it lived largely on plunder; in 364 it repaid itself for the conquest of Olympia by raiding the sacred treasures. It is true that the raid ostensibly took the form of a loan, and that the gold coins issued out of its proceeds bore the name of Pisa, not of Arcadia; but these subterfuges probably deceived nobody.

Considering that compulsory loans from temples were not an uncommon expedient in Greek statecraft, we must admit that the Arcadians strained rather than broke Greek conventions. Yet the gold obols of Pisa presently burnt holes in their pockets. Their religious scruples, moreover, prompted the further question whether on broad grounds of policy a standing mercenary army was desirable at all. Being largely of Arcadian nationality, this force had a large vote in the federal synod, and as its professional interests lay in the direction of warfare and plunder without end, it naturally favoured a more adventurous policy than the more substantial and settled population desired. Eventually the Mantineans protested in the federal congress against the use of the sacred moneys, and after a sharp tussle with the federal authorities, who vainly endeavoured to stifle the protests by prosecuting their authors for treason, they won over a majority of the Assembly. Taking the bull by the horns, the Assembly went so far as to abolish the payment of the federal forces and to replace the mercenaries with an unpaid ‘white guard.’ At the same time it offered peace to the Eleans, who abandoned their claims to Lasion and Triphylia in consideration of receiving back Olympia and their other recent losses. It is not known whether compensation was offered for the abstracted temple treasures. The terms were accepted, and a feud which had become one of the chief menaces to the peace of the Peloponnese was thus ended (winter 363—2).

But the settlement of the Elean question revived a problem which had become the crux of Peloponnesian politics, whether Peloponnesian disputes should be submitted to the arbitration of Thebes. Before the completion of the negotiations with Elis some members of the Arcadian executive appealed to Thebes for intervention against the Arcadian assembly. The Thebans, who had participated in the campaign for the recovery of Cromnus, had at least a formal right of complaint for having been ignored in the peace discussions, and they decided to exercise their right in a forcible manner. In concert with the Arcadian malcontents they sent a small force to purge Arcadia as they had purged Achaea in 366. The commander of this force appeared at the ceremony of swearing to the Elean peace, which the Arcadian executive had by collusion convened to Tegea (where feeling presumably ran strongest against the peace party), and having reassured the delegates by taking the oath in his own person he arrested as many of them as he could lay hands on. But the Mantinean representatives, who were the birds best worth bagging, had already flown. The fugitives at once called the rest of Arcadia to arms, and the Theban maladroit was glad to ransom himself by surrendering his captives.

 

VI. 

THE BATTLE OF MANTINEA

 

This fiasco left the Thebans no option but to renounce their interests in Arcadia or to reassert their authority by a crushing display of force. Epaminondas, as usual, was all for drastic measures, and urged that it would be treason for Thebes to desert her own partisans in the Peloponnese. After their recent successful intervention in Thessaly the Thebans were in the mood for one more Peloponnesian adventure. They resolved to coerce the Arcadian independents and made preparations for a great military effort, in which all the Central Greeks and Thessalians were required to participate.

The Theban mobilization had the immediate effect of splitting up the Arcadian federation and dividing the Peloponnese into two hostile camps. While the northern portion of Arcadia stood firm by Mantinea, the southern section, including Tegea and Megalopolis, threw in its lot with Thebes. The Argives and Messenians also held firm to the Theban alliance. But the Mantineans gained the support of their new Elean friends and of Thebes’ old enemies Achaea and Sparta. Of the Isthmus states Sicyon adhered to Thebes, while Corinth and Megara remained neutral. On the other hand, Athens promised support to Mantinea. Thus almost the entire Greek homeland was drawn into one or other of two closely matched coalitions (spring 362).

In the ensuing campaign the first problem for both parties was to concentrate their scattered contingents. Epaminondas, who was first in the field with his Central Greek and Thessalian levy, passed unchecked through the Isthmus and then halted at Nemea in order to intercept the Athenian forces. But the Athenians outwitted their enemy by using the sea route to Laconia and proceeding thence to Arcadia, and while the Thebans were wasting time on a false trail his opponents effected a general concentration at Mantinea. Nevertheless Epaminondas kept the initiative in his hands. Having joined forces with his Pelopon­nesian allies at Tegea he made a sudden night march upon Sparta, the capture of which would have been of little strategic but of high moral value. At this moment Sparta was practically defenceless. Part of the Spartan forces had already reached Mantinea; the main army under Agesilaus had only just started out from Sparta, but as Tegea barred the direct road to Mantinea, it was proceeding by a more circuitous route through Pellene and Asea, and thus stood but little chance of falling in with Epaminondas. But a deserter brought news to Agesilaus just in time for him to double back to Sparta; and Epaminondas, who probably had only a flying column with him, made no serious attempt to break into the strongly defended town but presently fell back upon Tegea. From this point he immediately sent forward his Theban and Thessalian horsemen towards Mantinea in order to seize the Mantinean harvest, then in process of being cut. As the main army had meantime moved off to the rescue of Sparta by the Asea route, the Mantinean territory should have fallen an easy prey to the invaders. But an Athenian cavalry troop, which had just arrived at Mantinea after several days of forced marching, sallied out and by a vigorous charge routed the marauders, who were perhaps just as jaded as their attackers. In this action the historian Xenophon lost a son, but with that self-suppression which characterizes more than one part of his Hellenica he left it to others to commemorate this incident.

After this second check Epaminondas took no further advantage of his position at Tegea, which allowed him to operate on inner lines, but permitted the enemy to concentrate in full force at Mantinea. The mischances of his campaign and shortage of supplies determined him to force a decision in a pitched battle. Though in numbers he was scarcely if at all superior to his opponents, each side probably numbering some 25,000 men, yet by his personal ascendancy he had created a fine fighting spirit through all his force, and his Boeotian contingent, which was now drilled uniformly on the Theban model, was capable of winning a battle single-handed.

The level upland valley in which Mantinea and Tegea were situated is narrowed in the middle like an hour-glass by two spurs projecting from the adjacent longitudinal ranges. Between these spurs Epaminondas’ opponents had taken up a position in defence of Mantinea which could only be carried by a frontal attack. As at Leuctra, Epaminondas decided to stake everything on an overwhelming thrust against the enemy’s key position. Instead of dressing his whole front by the left, he again, as at Leuctra, kept his centre and right wing lagging in successive echelons. As a further means of deferring the action on his right flank he posted a detachment on the rising ground at the edge of the battlefield, so as to take in flank any sudden advance by the enemy’s left wing. On his own left wing he drew up his entire Boeotian infantry corps in a deep ramming formation, and on its flank a similar wedge of cavalry interspersed with quick-footed javelin-men. To put his adversaries off their guard he changed direction during his advance and turned in under a mountain spur on his left. Here he made the deception complete by halting his men and making them ground arms. So successful was this ruse that the enemy concluded that he had called off his attack and was going to pitch camp, and under this impression relinquished their battle order. When their formation was thoroughly broken up, Epaminondas right-turned again into line of battle and made a surprise onset.

Of the details of this combat we have no trustworthy account. It is clear, however, that Epaminondas achieved his primary purpose, for the Boeotian columns pierced the Spartan and Mantinean fronts facing them and thereby unhinged the entire enemy line. A sweeping victory now lay in Epaminondas’ grasp, but before he could drive home his success the Theban general was struck with a mortal wound. To such an extent was Epaminondas the brain of his army that the moment it lost his guidance it became paralysed. The Boeotian horse and foot suspended their pursuit, and the light-armed men blundered aimlessly across to the enemy’s left wing, where the Athenians made short work of them. The centre and right wing of Epaminondas’ force paused before it became seriously engaged. Thus the loss of one man converted a decisive victory into an unprofitable draw.

In the history of ancient warfare Epaminondas is an outstanding figure. In his methodical exploitation of Greek shock tactics, in his handling of multiple columns on the march, and in the personal magnetism by which he bound men of diverse cities and political interests into his service, he will bear comparison with the great Macedonian captains who followed him and indeed may be called his pupils. As a politician Epaminondas deserves full credit for his freedom from that rancorous spirit of party which obsessed most politicians of his age and bore off like a harpy the infant Theban democracy. On the other hand, he does not rank as a great Panhellenic patriot: indeed we may ascribe even to Agesilaus a clearer appreciation of the need for Panhellenic solidarity. His political vision does not appear to have extended beyond an ill-defined suzerainty of Thebes over Greece, or to have envisaged any better instrument of control than haphazard military intervention. His political achievements therefore were mainly negative. In liberating the Helots of Messenia and in saving the Boeotian League from disruption Epaminondas per­formed tasks of sound constructive statesmanship; in destroying the supremacy of Sparta in the Peloponnese he also destroyed the pax Peloponnesiaca which had been the most consistent stabilizing force in Greek politics, and failed to supply any passable substitute. In urging on Thebes to an imperial policy he was blind to her deficiencies in man-power and mobilizable wealth, in political experience and in prestige; and he failed to realize that the military supremacy of his city which was so essentially his handiwork was by that very token a wasting asset, contingent upon his own life.

It is said that Epaminondas’ parting advice to his countrymen was to make a speedy peace. The Thebans, who had never given a consistent support to Epaminondas’ policy of adventures and therefore hardly required his prompting, at once convened a new congress. At this meeting the only serious difficulty that arose was over Messenia: rather than recognize its independence, the Spartans stood out of the settlement. But such was the general war-weariness that the other belligerents abandoned all outstanding claims and guaranteed each other’s possessions by a general defensive alliance.

 

VII. 

THE DECLINE OF THE ATHENIAN NAVAL LEAGUE

 

This compact marks a distinct advance towards the formation of a Greek League of Cities, in that its signatories not only renounced mutual aggression but recognized the need of active mutual support, and instead of giving the peace of Greece in trust to a single imperial state made its defence a general obligation upon the Greek powers. The general treaty, moreover, was reinforced by a specific convention drawn up shortly after (second half of 362 or first half of 361) by Athens, Achaea, Phlius and the reconstructed Arcadian League with the same object in view. Yet such alliances remained mere expressions of a pious opinion failing some provision for the regular interchange of opinion among their members, and the prompt execution of common resolutions. Greece had to wait twenty-four years longer until a statesman of real constructive ability provided her with a federal machinery that was at once equitable and efficient.

In the absence of any effective scheme of co-operation among the land powers of the Greek world, the revived maritime league of Athens remained for the moment the only centre of union which might serve as the nucleus of a general Greek Confederacy. This league, as we have seen, failed to attract the states of the Greek mainland. The Thebans, who had been enrolled among its original members, did not remain in it for long, and in seceding from it they detached the Acarnanians, Euboeans and Chalcidians (371 BC). But most of the maritime allies adhered to Athens and took part in the various peace congresses between 374 and 362. In securing the freedom of the seas the Athenian Confederacy accomplished work of manifest value, and if the Athenians had remained true to its original principle of mutual defence, it might well have lived on and even experienced a new growth.

But the Athenians had not learnt sufficiently the lesson of their past failures, and the naval ascendancy which they had recovered in the warfare of the ’seventies was again perverted from purposes of defence to be an instrument of oppression. The first symptom of a relapse into former errors may be discerned in the renewed interest which the Athenians displayed in their long-lost colony of Amphipolis. In the convention with the Peloponnesian states drawn up after the battle of Leuctra they had stipulated for a free hand in dealing with the city, and in 369 their general Iphicrates was sent out with a squadron to recapture it, but failed in his mission.

But the real starting-point in their career of acquisitive imperialism was 366 BC. In that year Callistratus, who had consistently advocated a policy of defensive alliances on a basis of strict autonomy, was accused of treason consequent upon the loss of Oropus. By a brilliant display of oratory he secured his acquittal; but he lost his political ascendancy, and a few years later he succumbed to a charge of ‘having advised the demos ill’, and went into exile. He was supplanted in the public favour by Timotheus. This soldier of fortune, undismayed by the fiasco of his campaign in 373, still pressed for a policy of naval adventure. In 366 he was entrusted with a powerful armament and a roving commission in Aegean waters. The Athenian general had been enjoined to treat Persia with respect, but he saw little reason for keeping to his instructions.

The Persian empire, having recovered from one epidemic of rebellions in the ’eighties, was passing through a second and even more dangerous crisis in the ’sixties. In Egypt the native prince Nectanebo I (378—361) maintained his independence against all comers: in 374 he repelled an invasion by a large composite force of Persian levies and Greek mercenaries under Pharnabazus and Iphicrates. A few years later (c. 366) a fresh insurrection in Phoenicia and Cilicia deprived the King of the best part of his war fleet. But the most serious rebellion broke out in Asia Minor, whose governors, long accustomed to passive disloyalty, now became openly mutinous. In Cappadocia a capable native satrap named Datames was goaded by a palace intrigue into open insurrection. His example was followed to east and west by the governor of Armenia and by Ariobarzanes the successor of Pharnabazus, whose efforts to recruit a mercenary force in Greece we have already noticed. In Caria Hecatomnus’ son Mausolus played the same double game as his father had practised in the Cyprian war; and Autophradates the satrap of Lydia was eventually constrained by his rebel neighbours to make common cause with them (367—6). For a while all Asia Minor was lost to the King. But in the long run the Persian governors proved yet more disloyal to each other than to their overlord. Several of the lesser mutineers deserted back to Artaxerxes, and after the deaths of the ringleaders, Datames and Ariobarzanes (c. 360), the King’s authority was re-established.

‘Persia’s difficulty is my opportunity’ was the motto of more than one Greek soldier of fortune. In 366 the Spartan king Agesilaus, profiting by the lull in the war at home, entered into Ariobarzanes’ pay as a recruiting officer and diplomatic agent. After the campaign of Mantinea the aged king again turned condottiere and fought his last battles in the employ of the rebel princes of Egypt.

While Agesilaus was earning subsidies for Sparta, Timotheus was acquiring territory for Athens. After a ten months siege (366—5) Samos capitulated to him, and in return for services unspecified Ariobarzanes made over to him the important station of Sestos on the Hellespont (365). In the following years (364—3) Timotheus was sent to the Macedonian coast, where Iphicrates had wasted four years in futile endeavours to recover Amphipolis. The new commander did no better against this fortress, but with the help of the Macedonian king Perdiccas, who had recently murdered the regent Ptolemy and now was eager to buy the recognition of Athens, he wrested Torone, Potidaea, Pydna, Methone, and several other cities from the Chalcidian League.

In 364 Timotheus’ campaigns suffered a brief interruption through the sudden appearance of an unsuspected enemy fleet. In this year the Thebans, having left the Peloponnese to work out its own perdition, had won a free hand for enterprise in a new field. At the instigation of Epaminondas, who rightly perceived that Athens was now his chief adversary, and that the quickest means of checkmating her would be to demolish her naval supremacy, they annexed the Locrian harbour of Larymna and there built an armada of 100 warships. This fleet, by far the greatest that ever sailed under a Boeotian flag, so took the Athenians by surprise that they for the moment let the trident drop from their hands. Under Epaminondas’ pennant the Boeotian interlopers sailed unopposed to the Propontis and won over Byzantium from Athens. After this rapid success they returned home, apparently without attempting to procure other defections, although the islands of Naxos and Ceos declared for them; and the new turn which Peloponnesian politics took in the ensuing years precluded them from undertaking a second cruise. By her failure to follow up her first naval success Thebes probably lost nothing in the long run: although she could supply ships and men, she lacked the funds which were indispensable for sustained naval operations.

In 362 the Athenians received another unexpected blow from their former ally Alexander of Pherae, now a vassal of Thebes. Not only did Alexander’s flotilla make successful tip-and-run raids among the Cyclades, but it inflicted some loss upon its Athenian pursuers before it slipped back into its port at Pagasae. But this foray, like that of Epaminondas, was more annoying than dangerous.

After these diversions the Athenians were able to resume operations in the region of the Hellespont. In this quarter the Thracian king Cotys (383—60), who was not content like his predecessors Medocus and Hebryzelmis to leave his seaboard in foreign lands, offered persistent opposition to the seizure of new stations by Athens. But after his death the greater part of the Gallipoli peninsula passed into Athenian hands.

This acquisition, together with the recapture of Euboea in 357, marks the limit of Athens’ naval expansion in the fourth century. Judged by the map, Athenian imperialism might appear to have been justified once more. In reality, however, the grasping policy of Timotheus killed the Second Athenian Confederacy as surely as Pericles’ and Cleon’s overbearing attitude had killed the First. For a second time the Athenian protectorate played over into a tyranny. It was perhaps but a small matter when Athens punished rebellions on the islands of Ceos and Naxos by limiting their jurisdiction (363—2). The establishment of cleruchies at Samos (365) and Potidaea (361), though undeniably contrary to the spirit of the Second Confederacy, did not infringe its letter, as these two acquisitions were not formally enrolled in the League. But the financial consequences of the new imperialism were utterly ruinous. Athenian war expenditure, which had already been swollen by the cost of the mercenaries on garrison duty at the Isthmus, was further inflated by the upkeep of a fleet whose gradual increase to a total of over 250 ships is recorded in a series of contemporary navy-lists which have been preserved on inscriptions. The yearly contributions of the allies, amounting at most to 350 talents, together with the proceeds of the Athenian property tax, proved woefully inadequate to cover the military outlay. The straits to which lack of funds had reduced Timotheus in 373 became a normal experience of each successive admiral. The more considerate commanders, such as Timotheus himself, had recourse to the private generosity of their ships’ captains, or paid their debts in token money issued for eventual redemption in silver out of the spoils of war. The more reckless ones black­mailed the allied cities and plundered the merchant shipping of the Aegean. By the end of the ’sixties the Second Athenian Confederacy was irredeemably bankrupt; from being an instrument of security to the Aegean communities it was degenerating into an Algerian pirate organization.

Thus the history of the decade after Leuctra marks the final failure of city-state imperialism on land and sea. This failure, coupled with the constant recrudescence of faction fighting within the several cities, the general unsettlement and the partial im­poverishment which followed upon the political unrest, might lead the reader to infer, as some of the most keen-sighted of Greek contemporaries did in fact conclude, that the decline and fall of Greece had now definitely set in. But quand Dieu efface il se prépare à écrire. The ensuing chapters will show that Greece was on the eve of a great political reconstruction.

 

CHAPTER V

DIONYSIUS OF SYRACUSE