Polyb. 2.41.1, 11–12; cf. Str. 8.7.1.
52. Paus. 7.18.6; cf. F. W. Walbank 1957–79: I.233.
53. Paus. 10.3.4 (Phokian participation); IG VII.2537 = Moretti 1967–76: I.68 (Boiotian participation); Syll.3 408 (Athenian participation). Paus. 10.19.5–23.14 is the fullest ancient narrative. The Aitolian defense of Delphi is treated in full by Flacelière 1937: 93–112; Nachtergael 1977: 137–75; Scholten 2000: 31–37.
54. The phrase is Scholten’s (2000: 29–58 passim). The status of Ozolian Lokris relative to Aitolia is difficult to determine, but it appears to have enjoyed greater independence than Herakleia did: IG IX.12 1.12.
55. For the problems with this approach, and detailed analysis of the documents, see Grainger 1995: 318–20; Lefèvre 1995; Scholten 2000: 55, 235–52.
56. Scholten 2000: 240–43.
57. See below, p. 360.
58. Syll.3 398.
59. Seven recognition decrees survive: Syll.3 408 (Athens) and 402 with Robert 1933: 535–37 (Chios); FDelph III.1.481 (a Kykladic island), III.1.482 (Tenos), III.1.483 (Smyrna); Delph. inv. 6377 + 2872 (Abdera) and 6203 (unknown origin). The Smyrna decree must be slightly later than the first four, which all date to 246/5: Elwyn 1990. See Flacelière 1937: 133–38; Nachtergael 1977: 71–73 (for the date of the first four decrees), 435–37; Champion 1995.
60. Diog. Laert. 2.141; Nachtergael 1977: 167–68 with references to previous scholarship.
61. The sanctuary is discussed in greater detail below, pp. 199–200. T34, the only surviving decree of the koinon from the fourth century, was found at Aigion and is generally thought to have been set up in the Hamarion.
62. Polyb. 2.41.13–15.
63. Haussoulier 1917: 157; F. W. Walbank 1984a: 244; Rizakis 1995: 308 and 2008a: 146–47 (Leontion), 227 (Aigeira), 258 (Pellene).
64. Pyrrhos: Plut. Pyrrh. 26.14–24; Justin 25.4.4–7. Athenian alliance: IG II2 686–87 (Syll.3 434–35; Staatsverträge III.476). Achaian embassy and participation: l. 24. Cf. Heinen 1972: 117–42; Knoepfler 1993b.
65. Heinen 1972: 95–212, esp. 167–81.
66. Klaffenbach 1955; see comm. to T57.
67. Diod. Sic. 19.67.3–68.1.
68. Isopoliteia decrees: SEG 2.258 + SEG 18.245 (Chios = FDelph III.3.214 + BCH 23 [1959]: 435 with BE 77.231, 247/6?); possibly Syll.3 472 = Staatsverträge III.495 (isopoliteia between Phigaleia and Messene, shortly before 240, brokered by Aitolians, may imply existing isopoliteia between Messene and Aitolia, though ll. 19 and 25 speak only of philia; cf. Polyb. 4.6.11, ca. 220, for the claim that there existed “for a long time” a symmachia between Messene and the Aitolians). Kephallenia is perhaps to be added to this list: Flacelière 1937: 284 with n. 3.
69. See below, pp. 284–89.
70. Plut. Arat. 4.1–9.3; Paus. 2.8.3.
71. Plut. Arat. 9.4–5; Paus. 2.8.3.
72. Plut. Arat. 9.6–7; cf. Polyb. 2.43.3. The emphasis on homonoia as an Achaian virtue is especially Polybian; see Champion 2004: 122–29.
73. Polyb. 10.22.2; cf. Plut. Arat. 5.1, Philop. 1.3–4; Paus. 8.49.2, all with slight variations on the names. On the installation of Aristodemos see Paus. 8.27.11.
74. Plut. Arat. 12.1–14.4; Cic. De off. 2.23, 81–82. The attack may have been undertaken as an obligation to Ptolemy II, who had given Aratos forty talents (of 150 promised) to settle the demands of the returning Sikyonian exiles; might the attack on Corinth have been the condition for payment of the balance? The episode is cited by Bringmann 2001: 206 as an example of kings’ inability to meet all their financial obligations at once. F. W. Walbank 1984a: 247–48 more optimistically (and politically) supposes that Ptolemy sought a demonstration of Aratos’s good faith before the gift would be paid out in full.
75. The motive of the Achaian attack on Aitolia is said to have been retribution for an Aitolian attack on Sikyon before 251: Plut. Arat. 4.1. The date of that attack is unclear, so interpretation is difficult. See Will 1979–82: I.316; Buraselis 1982: 171–72; Urban 1979: 14–16 with F. W. Walbank 1984a: 147; Scholten 2000: 85–86. Invasion of Boiotia: Plut. Arat. 16.1; Polyb. 20.4.5.
76. Polyb. 20.5.2. Boiotian membership in the Aitolian koinon did not entail the loss of Opous to the Aitolians: Étienne and Knoepfler 1976: 288–92, 331–37, contra F. W. Walbank 1984a: 249–50; Le Bohec 1993: 162–63.
77. Polyb. 2.43.4; Plut. Arat. 18.2–22.9, 23.4, 24.1.
78. Polyb. 2.43.5; Plut. Arat. 24.3 with T37, T38.
79. Polyb. 2.43.9–10; cf. 9.34.6, 38.9. For the date of the Aitolian-Antigonid agreement, see F. W. Walbank 1936: 69.
80. Aitolians as friends of Triphylian Phigaleia, now part of Elis: IG V.2.419 (Staatsverträge III.495); Ager 1996: 119–24; Harter-Uibopuu 1998: 47–50. Scholten 2000: 118–23 provides a detailed discussion of Aitolian influence in the western Peloponnese.
81. Polyb. 4.77.10; Urban 1979: 87 n. 412.
82. Polyb. 2.45.1–2, 9.34.7; cf. Justin 28.1.1. Cf. Staatsverträge III.485. Cabanes 1976: 91–93 dates the partitioning to the period 253–251, but this may be too early; it neglects the chronological hints given by Polybios. See F. W. Walbank 1957–79: I.240 with references. Schoch and Wacker 1996 date the partitioning very broadly, in the period ca. 258–230. Dany 1999: 87–89 finds it impossible to narrow down a date more precisely than the period 251–243; cf. Scholten 2000: 88–91. If Justin 28.1.1–4 is accurate, the partitioning must predate 239.
83. Flacelière 1937: 206; Will 1979–82: I.319; F. W. Walbank 1984a: 251.
84. Scholten 2000: 88–89 with Phlegon of Tralles FGrHist 257 F 36 II.
85. A statue group dedicated at Delphi (FDelph III.4.178 [FDelph II.312 with fig. 254]; Paus. 10.16.6 with Jacquemin 1999: 63–64 with cat. no. 290) may commemorate this victory over Akarnania.
86. Refusal to engage, associated by Plutarch with Achaian distrust of Agis’s socioeconomic reforms: Plut. Agis 14.1–5, 31.1–2. Defense of Pellene: Plut. Arat. 31.3–32.3; Polyaenus, Strat. 8.59. See Urban 1979: 57 and Scholten 2000: 125–26 for the chronology of the attack; Plutarch’s account is compressed. Kynaitha as member of Achaian koinon: F. W. Walbank 1936: 70.
87. Plut. Arat. 33.1–2; Polyb. 2.44.1; Justin 28.1.1–4. Cf. Larsen 1975.
88. Alipheira: Polyb. 4.77.10; Heraia, Telphousa, and Kleitor: F. W. Walbank 1936: 68.
89. Plut. Arat. 25.1–6, 27.1–3. The tyrant, Aristippos, having survived the attempt with his power intact, charged the Achaians with attacking the city in time of peace. The Mantineians were asked to arbitrate in the dispute, and the Achaians received a rap on the knuckles in the form of a tiny monetary fine. See Will 1979–82: I.305 for discussion of the date.
90. Polyb. 2.44.1; Plut. Arat. 33.1. Cf. Scholten 2000: 134–36.
91. Justin 28.1.1–4.
92.
