The embassy from Amyntas is attested only by Diod. Sic 15.19.3, though Xen. Hell. 5.2.12–13 describes the hostilities between the Chalkideis and Amyntas.
38. Xen. Hell. 5.2.12. This speech and its arguments will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 5.
39. Diod. Sic. 15.19.1–3 with V. Parker 2003: 126–32.
40. Xen. Hell. 5.2.20–24. The Spartans authorized a levy of ten thousand Peloponnesian troops, augmented by allied forces. The size of this force is taken by Larsen 1968: 73–74 as an index of the strength of the Chalkideis.
41. Xen. Hell. 5.2.27. There has been some speculation that after the King’s Peace the Thebans made an alliance with Sparta, but the only ancient evidence for the claim is in Isocr. 14.27, a passage full of tendentious factual errors, and Plut. Pel. 4–5.1, a passage that directly contradicts both Xenophon’s (Hell. 5.2.4–6) and Diodoros’s (15.5.3–5, 12.1–2) accounts of the same event and is tendentious in its own way, attempting to portray Epameinondas as a philosopher-warrior, the Sokrates to Pelopidas’s Alkibiades. (Cf. Plut. Alc. 7.3.) The decree prohibiting Thebans from participating in an expedition against Olynthos would have been a clear violation of any such alliance, and this consideration along with the source problems tips the balance against the veracity of the claim. See Buckler 1980a; on Epameinondas as philosopher see Arist. Rhet. 1398b18; Vidal-Naquet 1986: 61–84.
42. On this aspect see Gehrke 1985: 175–77.
43. Xen. Hell. 5.2.25.
44. Betrayal: Xen. Hell. 5.2.26–31; cf. Plut. Pel. 5. Trial of Ismenias: Xen. Hell. 5.2.35–36 (jury composed of representatives of the Peloponnesian League); cf. Plut. Pel. 5.3; De gen. Soc. 576a (who places the trial in Sparta). See Landucci Gattinoni 2000.
45. Xen. Hell. 5.2.28, 32; Diod. Sic. 15.20.2.
46. T4.4.
47. Xen. Hell. 5.4.10–13; Diod. Sic. 15.20.2, 23.4, 25.1 and 3, 27.1 and 3; Plut. Pel. 12.3, 13.2; De gen. Soc. 598f.
48. The repopulation of Plataia is a necessary precondition to Xenophon’s narrative about its pro-Spartan sympathies in the late 380s and early 370s. Paus. 9.1.4 places its restoration in the period of the King’s Peace, and the same is implied by the hypothesis to Isocrates’ Plataikos. Some have argued that Plataia was restored in 382, but Paus. 9.1.4 indicates that 386 is more likely; for full discussion see Amit 1973: 106–9.
49. Xen. Hell. 5.4.10, 14–16.
50. Xen. Hell. 5.4.46. For Spartan garrisons in Boiotia in this period see Wickersham 2007.
51. Xen. Hell. 5.4.49.
52. Xen. Hell. 5.2.37–3.27; Diod. Sic. 15.20.3–23.3. The terms of the treaty (having the same friends and enemies, following wherever the Spartans might lead, and being symmachoi) are precisely those identified by Bolmarcich 2005 as belonging to subordinate allies of Sparta.
53. It is usually assumed, despite the absence of any clear evidence to support the claim, that the koinon of the Chalkideis was dissolved after the Spartan victory at Olynthos: Beck 1997: 241. Psoma 2001: 228–30 rightly dismisses the claim and summarizes the evidence for continued regional cooperation and economic and expansionist activities of the koinon in the decade after the Spartan victory.
54. Xen. Hell. 5.4.1–9. Cf. Diod. Sic. 15.25–27; Plut. Pel. 7–13 with varying details. Gehrke 1985: 177–80.
55. Diod. Sic. 15.28.1; Plut. Pel. 13.1. Sordi 1973 on the seizure of power by Thebans in this moment of political reconstitution.
56. Xen. Hell. 5.4.10–13; Diod. Sic. 15.25. Sources differ on the nature of Athenian support. Many have read Xenophon’s account as evidence only for private Athenian support (noting especially the dēmos’s decision to execute the two generals who collaborated with the Theban rebels, Hell. 5.4.19, and the description of the supporters as “some Athenians from the frontiers” at Hell. 5.4.10, 12), but there is nothing in Xenophon that leads us ineluctably to that conclusion. Indeed several sources speak against it: Xen. Hell. 5.4.14; Diod. Sic. 15.25.4, 26.1–2; Din. 1.39; Isocr. 14.29. See Cawkwell 1973: 56–58; Cargill 1981: 56; Kallet-Marx 1985: 140–47; Stylianou 1998: 230–31; V. Parker 2007: 15–16, 24–25, 27–28. The evidence for other Boiotian poleis sending aid to expel the Spartan garrison in the winter of 379/8 is generally overlooked, but Diod. Sic. 15.26.3 is explicit. It is immediately plausible: we have every reason, from the accounts of the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia as well as Xenophon, to expect stasis in the Boiotian poleis in this period. On the high value of Diodoros’s whole account of the Theban hegemony, based on Ephoros, see Momigliano 1935; Sordi 2005.
57. Xen. Hell. 5.4.14–15.
58. Diod. Sic. 15.28.5.
59. Xen. Hell. 5.4.20–33 for the unsuccessful attempt and the sham trial of Sphodrias in absentia in Sparta that eventually acquitted him. Whether or not Sphodrias was bribed by the Thebans to make the attack is immaterial; for recent discussion of this point see Hodkinson 2007.
60. RO 22 ll. 24–25.
61. Xenophon, infamously, makes no mention. Diod. Sic. 15.28 places it in 377/6, after the liberation of Thebes from Sparta but before Sphodrias’s raid on Peiraieus (Diod. Sic. 15.29.5–8). The liberation of the Kadmeia from its Spartan garrison occurred in winter 379/8, so Diodoros’s absolute date must be wrong, but it is possible that his relative chronology is correct, viz. that the confederacy was founded before the seizure of Peiraieus (Cawkwell 1973; Cargill 1981: 57–60; Hornblower 2002: 233), which would help to understand the motives behind Sphodrias’s raid. On the other hand, the raid on Peiraieus can be seen as precisely the sort of proof the Athenians needed to gain alliances in support of an Athenian role as the new enforcers of the King’s Peace, taking over where the Spartans had so patently failed (Rice 1975; Badian 1995: 89–90 n. 34; Rhodes and Osborne 2003: 100).
62. RO 20 ll. 72–77. The full integration of Thebes into the allied synedrion may have been recorded in IG II2 40, but the text is so fragmentary that certain interpretation is impossible. See Cargill 1981: 52–56, 60.
63. Xen. Hell. 5.4.35–41, 46–56; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.34.1–3. The Thebans undertook a mission to Thessaly to purchase grain; the ships were captured by the Spartan garrison commander at Histiaia (Oreos) on Euboia, which shortly after revolted from Sparta and may have made an alliance with the Thebans that recognized their hagemonia in the war, recorded on a newly discovered inscription: Aravantinos and Papazarkadas 2012.
64. Xen. Hell. 5.4.63.
65. Orchomenos: Diod. Sic. 15.37.1–2 (who places the event, probably wrongly, in 376/5; cf. Beloch 1912–27: III.1.155); Plut. Pel. 16.2–3. Tegyra: Plut. Pel. 16–17.10, Ages. 27.3; Diod. Sic. 15.81.2.
66. Possible reintegration: Isocr. 14.9. Destruction of Thespiai: Xen. Hell. 6.3.1, 5; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6, 51.3; Isocr. 6.27; Dem. 16.4, 25, 28.
67. Xen. Hell. 6.3.1, 5; Plut. Pel. 25.7; Diod. Sic. 15.46.6; Paus. 9.1.8; Isocr. 14 passim. For discussion see Amit 1973: 114–18; Tuplin 1986. At the same time the Thebans apparently attacked Orchomenos, though the results were indecisive (Xen. Hell. 6.4.10). See below, pp. 366–67, for further discussion of the dynamics of these attacks.
68. Xen. Hell. 6.3.1–2.
69. Plut. Ages. 27.3–28.2.
70. Xen. Hell. 6.3.11.
71.
