3. Aim: Diod. Sic. 18.9.5, 10.2. Participants: Diod. Sic. 18.10.5, 11.1–2.
4. Diod. Sic. 18.11.3–5.
5. Melitaia: Diod. Sic. 18.15.1–7. Naval defeats: Diod. Sic. 18.15.8–9; Plut. Demetr. 11.4; Marm.Par. (IG XII.5.444 l. 110). Krannon: Diod. Sic. 18.16.4–17.5.
6. Diod. Sic. 18.17.8.
7. Diod. Sic. 18.18.1–6. Moretti 1967–76: I.8 l. 14; Habicht 1997: 77.
8. Invasion: Diod. Sic. 18.24.1–5. Thessaly: Simpson 1958: 359 implies that they were motivated only by stubborn opposition to those in power in Macedon; but the Aitolian occupation of the Parnassos region by about 301 (to be discussed below) does require some background explanation. The two goals are not mutually exclusive. Citizen forces: Diod. Sic. 18.38.5–6.
9. Declaration: Diod. Sic. 18.56.1–8. Aitolian support for Polyperchon: Diod. Sic. 19.35.2, 52.6, 53.1.
10. Declaration: Diod. Sic. 19.61.1–3; Justin 15.1.3. Alliance with Aitolia: Diod. Sic. 19.66.2. Cf. Simpson 1958: 359.
11. Diod. Sic. 19.53.2; Marm.Par. (IG XII.5.444) l. 117).
12. Hatred: Paus. 9.7.2. Complaints: Diod. Sic. 19.61.2; Justin 51.3.
13. Paus. 9.7.1. The importance of the message sent to the Peloponnesian cities has been stressed by Bearzot 1997. The enthusiasm of the Athenians for the project is to be explained in part by the fact that by this time Cassander had already wooed Athens away from Polyperchon (Diod. Sic. 18.74.3).
14. Knoepfler 2001c: 12.
15. Diod. Sic. 18.3–4. The comment is made by way of explanation for Boiotia’s opposition to Athens in the Lamian War, for which see also Paus. 1.25.4. Boiotian opposition is highlighted by Knoepfler 2001c: 12.
16. Contra Beloch 1912–27: IV.2.427; Gullath 1982: 112. Contributions to the rebuilding effort were made by several kings and communities of mainland Greece and the Aegean: IG VII.2419.
17. Stasis at Dyme: Diod. Sic. 19.66.2–6. Antigonid victory: Diod. Sic. 19.74.1–2.
18. Polyb. 2.41.11.
19. Agrinion: Diod. Sic. 19.67.3–5, 68.1. It may be in connection with this attack that we have an epigram, found at Palairos, honoring Deinias the son of Learchos, who died defending the Akarnanians against the “hubris of the Aitolians”: Peek 1955: I.1458 (IG IX.12 462; Moretti 1967–76: II.89).
20. Invasion: Diod. Sic. 19.74.3–6, 75.6 with Billows 1990: 122 n. 52.
21. Diod. Sic. 19.77.4–6, 78.3.
22. Diod. Sic. 19.78.3–5, 20.100.6. Ptolemaios went on to dislodge Cassander’s forces from the cities of Phokis and from Lokrian Opous. It is likely that he received Boiotian assistance at least for the latter campaign, to judge from a decree set up at Delphi to honor one Peisis of Thespiai for having liberated Opous: FDelph III.4.463 = Moretti 1967–76: II.71; cf. Flacelière 1937: 71–72.
23. Holleaux 1885, using the assumption to date the four aphedriate dedications that he found at the Ptoion (T16–19) to the period 312–304, which has now been proved too early. (See comm. ad locum.) Cf. Prandi 1988: 150, relying heavily on Paus. 9.3.6, which in fact allows no chronological specificity. The problems with the argument are discussed in detail by Knoepfler 2001c: 13–16.
24. Ptolemaic garrisons: Diod. Sic. 20.37.1–2.
25. Aitolian efforts: Diod. Sic. 20.99.3; Athenian efforts: Plut. Dem. 22.8. The claim of Aitolian diplomatic activity at Rhodes, if true, may provide some of the background to the otherwise surprisingly sudden prominence of the Aitolians in central Greece (particularly Phokis and Thessaly) after 301. See Mendels 1984: 178–79.
26. Diod. Sic. 20.100.6.
27. Chalkis: Diod. Sic. 20.100.6. Oropos: Moretti 1967–76: I.8 ll. 13–14; Habicht 1997: 77.
28. Diod. Sic. 20.100.6; Plut. Dem. 23.3.
29. Diod. Sic. 20.100.6.
30. Sikyon now became known for a brief period as Demetrias: Diod. Sic. 20.102; Paus. 2.7.1; Str. 8.6.25; Thür 1995. Corinth, Achaian Boura, Arkadian Skyros, and Orchomenos: Diod. Sic. 20.103.
31. Flacelière 1930 and 1937: 49–91, esp. 57–68; Gullath 1982: 195–96. Knoepfler 2007a has proposed a later date for this treaty, ca. 274–272, on the grounds of his restoration of line 4, which would require the existence of a statue of Aitolia, known to have been erected at Thermon only after 279. If this is correct, we would need to find another way to explain the coordination between Boiotia and Aitolia in the war against Demetrios in 293 (in which the Aitolians rendered admittedly little material assistance to the Boiotians) and Aitolian support for the Boiotians in the matter of the Athenian inscription accompanying the rededication of Persian shields at Thermon ca. 291 (on which see below).
32. FDelph III.4.399 (SEG 17.228). See above, p. 89.
33. Plut. Demetr. 36–37 and 39.1, Pyrrh. 7.2; Justin 16.1.18–19.
34. Plut. Demetr. 39.2, 5 (on the leading role of Peisis of Thespiai in orchestrating and executing the revolt); Polyaenus, Strat. 4.7.11. Cf. Roesch 1982: 432–33.
35. Plut. Demetr. 39.4, Pyrrh. 7.3
36. Plut. Demetr. 13.1–3.
37. See above, p. 85. The shields were apparently left hanging, and the Thebans made their second appeal to have them removed ca. 291, hoping for support from the Aitolians.
38. Douris of Samos FGrHist 76 F 13 apud Ath. 6.253b–f. Habicht 1970: 232–33; Scholten 2000: 22 with n. 90.
39. Habicht 1970: 34–44 and 1997: 92–94.
40. Plut. Demetr. 40.7–8 with Kuhn 2006: 269–72.
41. Plut. Demetr. 41.1–3, Pyrrh. 7.4–10; Flacelière 1937: 76–78. The treaty has been fairly recently discovered, but the stone is highly fragmentary, and the text has been heavily restored: Lefèvre 1998 (SEG 48.588).
42. Plut. Demetr. 46.1.
43. Roesch 1982: 435–39; Knoepfler 2001c: 15–19, using epigraphic evidence to support the late date for reintegration. Ma 2008: 84 suggests that the lion monument built atop the burial mound for the Theban dead at Chaironeia was built either when Cassander refounded Thebes or now, when the city rejoined the koinon. A date of 287 seems to me more likely, in that the monument was erected at Chaironeia and required the consent of the other Boiotians. It would be a splendid means for the Thebans to reestablish themselves as members of the koinon (they suffered heavily in the Boiotian attempt to defeat the Macedonians), in addition to the monument’s immediate role in commemorating the battle itself.
44. The districts in general are discussed below, pp. 370–84; on the aphedriates, see below, pp. 221–24.
45. Cf. Roesch 1979: 246.
46. Justin 24.1.1–2.
47. Justin 24.1.2–4.
48. Justin 24.1.7.
49. Paus. 10.20.9; Scholten
