of autonomia and its impact on this peace conference, see Rhodes 1999.
72. Xen. Hell. 6.3.18–4.3; cf. Plut. Ages. 28.2–3.
73. Xen. Hell. 6.4.14–15; Diod. Sic. 15.51–56; Plut. Pel. 20–23, Ages. 28.5–6; cf. Arist. Pol. 1269a34–1271b19 for analysis of Spartan weakness in the wake of this defeat.
74. Xen. Hell. 6.4.19 and Buckler 2000a: 328.
75. Polyb. 2.39.9 and Str. 8.7.1 report that the Achaians were asked to arbitrate in the dispute between Thebes and Sparta. For debate about the historicity of the report see von Stern 1884: 154–55; Grote 1906: VIII.189; Cary 1925; F. W. Walbank 1957–79: I.226–27; and Buckler 1978. I doubt the skepticism is justified.
76. Xen. Hell. 6.5.1–2; Ryder 1965: 70–71; Jehne 1994: 74–79.
77. Xen. Hell. 6.4.10.
78. Diod. Sic. 15.57.1.
79. Diod. Sic. 15.57.1; cf. Xen. Hell. 6.5.23 for Phokian and Lokrian support in 369.
80. Buckler 1980b provides a detailed account of these years.
81. Xen. Hell. 6.5.6. Diod. Sic. 15.59.1 attributes the political innovation to Lykomedes of Tegea, who persuaded the Arkadians “to arrange themselves in a single synteleia and have a common council made up of ten thousand men, with the authority to decide on matters of war and peace.” The Arkadian origin of this koinon speaks against the idea that the Thebans were actively promoting federalism in this period: Beck 2000: 340–43 contra Beister 1989. For further discussion of the Arkadian regional state organized in 370 see Larsen 1968: 180–95; Beck 1997: 67–83; Nielsen 2002: 474–99.
82. The date of the foundation of Megalopolis has been contested; Diod. Sic. 15.72.4 places it after the Tearless Battle in 368, but Paus. 8.27.8 puts it in 371/0, and the Parian Marble (IG XII.5.444 l. 73) no earlier than 370. Roy 1971: 572 argues that the Thebans were uninvolved, and that is surely impossible given that it must have taken years for the city to get off the ground, but he may be right that we should not attribute to them the primary impetus for the project. See Hornblower 1990; Moggi 1976: 293–325.
83. Diod. Sic. 15.62.3; cf. Dem. 16.12. Athenian refusal to help the Arkadians is explained by their alignment with the Spartans implicit in the post-Leuktra peace conference: Buckler 1980b: 68–69 and 2000a: 328. I agree with Beck 2000 that the move in Arkadia toward federal institutions after Leuktra is not to be explained by some ideological penchant of the Thebans for federalism.
84. Xen. Hell. 6.5.22–24; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.62.4; Paus. 9.14.2.
85. Xen. Hell. 6.5.28; Diod. Sic. 15.65.6.
86. Xen. Hell. 6.5.30–32. This may have been the occasion for the Theban grant of proxeny to Timeas son of Cheirikrates, a Lakonian, recorded on a stele with a relief depicting inter alia the prow of a warship (T6 with commentary).
87. Diod. Sic. 15.66; Paus. 9.14.5.
88. Very little is known about this state, but it is attested epigraphically: IG V.1.1425 and FDelph III.4.5–6. See Luraghi 2009.
89. Xen. Hell. 6.5.50.
90. The Spartan-Athenian alliance: Xen. Hell. 6.5.33–49, 7.1–14; Diod. Sic. 15.67.1. Action in the Corinthia: Xen. Hell. 6.5.49–52 for the end of the first Theban invasion; 7.1.15–19 for the beginning of the second.
91. Arkadian independence under leadership of Lykomedes of Mantineia: Xen. Hell. 7.1.22–26; Diod. Sic. 15.67.2.
92. Xen. Hell. 6.4.35; Diod. Sic. 15.67.3–4; Plut. Pel. 26.1.
93. Plut. Pel. 26.4–8; Diod. Sic. 15.67.4.
94. Plut. Pel. 27.1–2; Diod. Sic. 15.71.1.
95. Plut. Pel. 27.3–5; not reported by Diodoros.
96. The aim of punishment is underscored by Plut. Pel. 27.5.
97. Diod. Sic. 15.71.3, 75.2; Xen. Hell. 7.1.28.
98. Boiotian proxeny decree for a Perrhaibian: IG VII.2858.
99. Cf. Xen. Hell. 7.1.15–18; Diod. Sic. 15.68.2.
100. Xen. Hell. 7.1.42; cf. Diod. Sic. 15.75.2.
101. Xen. Hell. 7.1.43; Gehrke 1985: 14. Whether the harmosts should be seen as a Spartan-inspired strategy for subordination or an attempt to enforce some stability in the political settlement (so Buckler 1980b: 192–93) is unclear. In 367/6 the Thebans also had a harmost and garrison at Sikyon (Xen. Hell. 7.2.11, 7.3.4). The practice should probably be associated with the broader plan of gaining (by force if necessary) the adherence of the entire northern Peloponnese.
102. Diod. Sic. 15.75.2. Buckler 1980b: 188 for a slightly different chronology.
103. Aitolian friendship with Boiotia: Diod. Sic. 15.57.1. Aitolian aspirations for Naupaktos: Xen. Hell. 4.6.14 and above, n. 22. Cf. Buckler 1980b: 189–90.
104. So Freitag 2009: 24.
105. Freitag 2009: 24 makes the attractive suggestion that the Achaians had garrisoned these places only in anticipation of the Boiotian attack, and that the language of liberation is pure Theban propaganda.
106. Gehrke 1985: 14–15.
107. Σ B ad Il. 2.494 reports that “Kalydon was given to the Aitolians, who were in a dispute with the Aiolians and called it their own on the grounds of the catalogue of the Aitolians,” viz. the Aitolian entry in the Homeric Catalogue of Ships. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff 1921 suggested that the scholiast was a fourth-century historian whose report refers to the events of 367/6; cf. Jacoby, comm. to FGrHist 70 F 122. Kalydon was certainly Aitolian in the latter half of the fourth century: Ps.-Skylax 35 in GGM I.37. Buckler 1980b: 188–91; Bommeljé 1988: 298, 302–3, 310; Merker 1989: 305–6.
108. Sordi 1953b, 1969: 343–49. Rzepka 2002: 230–31 takes it as a reference to the Aitolian assembly.
109. See Polyb. 4.3.1 with Grainger 1999: 34–35; de Souza 1999: 70–76; Scholten 2000: 9–12.
110. Schweigert 1939: 11; Klaffenbach 1939b: 191–92; Tod II.111.
111. Friendship: Diod. Sic. 15.57.1. Sordi 1953b, 1969: 343–49; Grainger 1999: 35 (though he is wrong to conclude that there was no Aitolian koinon at all in the first half of the fourth century); Beck 2000: 338–44.
112. Recent excavations conducted jointly by the Greek Archaeological Service and the Danish Institute at Athens have revealed the gates and towers, and clarified the overall plan of the town: Archaeological Reports 2001/2: 44–45; 2002/3: 41; 2003/4: 36; 2004/5: 42; 2005/6: 53; Dietz, Kolonas, Moschos, et al. 2007; Dietz and Stavropoulou-Gatsi 2009.
113. Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, et al. 1987: 112; Ober 1992: 165; Dietz, Kolonas, Moschos, et al. 1998: 255–57. Cf. Dietz, Kolonas, Houby-Nielsen, et al. 2000.
114. The remains were first identified with Trichoneion by Leake 1835: 55. Cf. Woodhouse 1897: 232–35; Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, et al. 1987: 83, 110–11; Antonetti 1990: 238–40.
115. Molykreion: Woodhouse 1897: 328; Lerat 1952: I.84–86, 188–89; Bommeljé, Doorn, Deylius, et al. 1987: 112; Freitag 2000: 58–67.
116.
