DOCSLIB.ORG

Nikos Karkavelias, Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes and the Ionia Campaign in 412 BC: Thuc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nikos Karkavelias, Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes and the Ionia Campaign in 412 BC: Thuc The Ancient History Bulletin VOLUME TWENTY-SEVEN: 2013 NUMBERS 3-4 Edited by: Edward Anson ò David Hollander ò Timothy Howe Joseph Roisman ò John Vanderspoel ò Pat Wheatley ò Sabine Müller ISSN 0835-3638 ANCIENT HISTORY BULLETIN Volume 27 (2013) Numbers 3-4 Edited by: Edward Anson, David Hollander, Sabine Müller, Joseph Roisman, John Vanderspoel, Pat Wheatley Senior Editor: Timothy Howe Editorial correspondents Elizabeth Baynham, Hugh Bowden, Franca Landucci Gattinoni, Alexander Meeus, Kurt Raaflaub, P.J. Rhodes, Robert Rollinger, Carol Thomas, Victor Alonso Troncoso Contents of volume twenty-seven Numbers 3-4 86 Jeremy LaBuff, Who(’)s(e) Karian? Language, Names, and Identity 108 Gabriel Baker, Sallust, Marius, and the Alleged Violation of the Ius Belli 130 Andrew W Collins, Alexander the Great and the Kingship of Babylon 149 Nikos Karkavelias, Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes and the Ionia Campaign in 412 BC: Thuc. 8.25-27 162 Vincent Rosivach, Funding Jury Pay in Athens c. 461 BC Review Article: 168 Thomas A. J. McGinn, Hire-Lease in Roman Law and Beyond NOTES TO CONTRIBUTORS AND SUBSCRIBERS The Ancient History Bulletin was founded in 1987 by Waldemar Heckel, Brian Lavelle, and John Vanderspoel. The board of editorial correspondents consists of Elizabeth Baynham (University of Newcastle), Hugh Bowden (Kings College, London), Franca Landucci Gattinoni (Università Cattolica, Milan), AleXander Meeus (University of Leuven), Kurt Raaflaub (Brown University), P.J. Rhodes (Durham University), Robert Rollinger (Universität Innsbruck), Carol Thomas (University of Washington), Victor Alonso Troncoso (Universidade da Coruña) AHB is currently edited by: Timothy Howe (Senior Editor: [email protected]), Edward Anson, David Hollander, Sabine Müller, Joseph Roisman, John Vanderspoel and Pat Wheatley. AHB promotes scholarly discussion in Ancient History and ancillary fields (such as epigraphy, papyrology, and numismatics) by publishing articles and notes on any aspect of the ancient world from the Near East to Late Antiquity. Submitted articles should normally be in English, but the journal will consider contributions in French, German, Italian or Spanish. SUBMISSION GUIDELINES AHB adheres to the usual North American editorial policies in the submission and acceptance of articles but imposes no House Style. Authors are, however, asked to use the abbreviations of L’Année philologique (APh) for journals, and of the Thesaurus linguae latinae (TLL) for Latin authors. Please send submissions to the editor most closely identified with your field of enquiry or, in case of doubt, to Timothy Howe ([email protected]). Articles must be submitted in electronic format, preferably generated by MS Word. Greek font or other special characters must convert such to Unicode and should be accompanied by a PDF version. Authors will receive PDF offprints of their contributions. Copyright is retained by the author. Books for reviews and enquiries concerning book reviews should be directed to Joseph Roisman ([email protected]). SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The subscription rate for Volume 28 (2014), for individual and institutional subscribers is USD 25.00. Detailed instructions about subscriptions and access to digital content can be found on the AHB website: http://ancienthistorybulletin.org PAYMENT Payment may be made via the subscription portal on the AHB website: http://www.ancienthistorybulletin.org/subscribed-users-area/membership-levels/ Cover image courtesy of The Nickle Arts Museum, University of Calgary Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes and the Ionia Campaign in 412 B.C.: Thuc. 8.25-27 Nikos Karkavelias The figure of Phrynichus, the son of Stratonides from the deme Deiradiotai, became one of the most controversial ones in late fifth century Athens. Through his wholehearted involvement in the oligarchic revolution of 411 B.C. the oligarch might have emerged as one of the most prominent figures in the Athenian political scene during the oligarchic revolution, but this engagement precipitated his violent death as well. The next generations of Athenians remembered him as an arch-traitor, a hated symbol of a tyrannical regime, which in its short life did everything it could to weaken the strength of the Empire, and reduce Athens to a mere compliant follower of its enemy, Sparta. Yet, despite the almost unanimous agreement in other sources,1 Phrynichus is presented in Thucydides (the present case under examination included) in an objective, neutral, if not outright positive light. The historian draws a picture of a man with outstanding intellectual capabilities, sound judgement, great logical faculty, rhetoric dexterity, and leadership talent. Accordingly, in this paper I shall undertake to examine Phrynichus’ capabilities as a military commander in the Ionia campaign. I hope to demonstrate that, despite criticism levelled at the Athenian commander by modern scholars, Thucydides’ judgement of his performance during that campaign, and in particular Phrynichus’ decision to decline battle at sea, against a Peloponnesian fleet that unexpectedly arrived in the vicinity of Miletus, and withdraw instead to Samos in safety, was sound and correct. The land battle at Miletus In the autumn of 412 B.C., Phrynichus along with two more generals, Scironides and Onomacles, was entrusted the most important and ambitious Athenian counter-offensive in Ionia since the disaster in Sicily, the objective of which was to re-conquer lost territory and quell the wave of defections among Athens’ allies.2 The three men were in charge of a not insignificant force consisting of forty-eight ships and 3500 heavy infantry.3 After a short stay in 1 e.g., [Lys.] 20.11-12; Lys.25.8, 10; Ar. Frogs 686-691; Arist. Politics 1305a36-1305b27. Phrynichus is depicted in these sources as a sycophant, opportunist, trickster, and plotter of schemes respectively. 2 On the date of the expedition, late September to beginning of October, see G. Busolt 1893-1904: 1432; A. Gomme, A. Andrewes and K. Dover 1945-1981 vol.5: 58. 3 D. Lewis 1961 drew attention to the possibility that Phrynichus may have been elected general ex apanton in 412. He pointed to the possible existence of a relationship between the general and a Scironides who proposed a decree at a meeting of Leontis tribe in the 340s ([D.] 58.18), in which case there would have been two generals from tribe Leontis in 412. Since Phrynichus was undoubtedly the most authoritative figure of the two, he would have been elected ex apanton. If this contention of Lewis is valid, the implications for Phrynichus’ public image and prestige that year become obvious. Lewis’ doubted the name Scironides on the grounds of its negative associations with the mythical Megarian bandit, thinking it awkward for an Athenian to bear this name, and he proposed the reading Κιρωνίδης, attested in the Vatican ms. B in Thucydides (he admits, however, that in AHB 27 (2013) 149-161 Page 149 Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes and the Ionia Campaign in 412 B.C. Samos for regrouping and replenishment, the task force landed at Miletus, the subduing of which, was the main objective of the mission. At the gates of the city they won a victory after a pitched battle against the Milesian hoplites, Chalkideus and his Peloponnesian troops and Tissaphernes with his horse and mercenaries respectively. But later on the same evening, news reached the Athenian camp that a newly arrived Peloponnesian fleet was approaching. Commanding this fleet was Therimenes, who had been ordered to deliver fifty-five ships (twenty-two from Sicily and thirty-three from the Peloponnese) to the Peloponnesian admiral Astyochus. Therimenes had first anchored at Leros, and when he got information about the Athenians’ presence at Miletus, he moved to Teichioussa in the Iasian gulf with a view to reconnoitring the area. There he met Alcibiades who briefed him on the critical situation that had evolved after the Athenian victory. The Athenian exile urged Therimenes not to abandon Miletus at that crucial moment, for otherwise the Peloponnesians would lose every hope of ever holding the entire Ionia region. Thereupon, it was agreed that the next day the Peloponnesians would attack the Athenian force at dawn, and try to save Miletus from falling into the hands of the enemy.4 The war council at the Athenian camp When news of the arrival of an enemy force in the area reached the Athenian camp, a war council among the generals took place to determine what course of action was to be taken.5 In this council, Phrynichus emerged as a charismatic leader, an officer who commanded respect from his fellow officers and managed to carry the day by sheer weight of his arguments. He unequivocally stated that, as far as it was in his power, he would not allow the Athenian force to stay and offer battle to the Peloponnesians at that particular moment. It would not be prudent, he argued, to risk their necks in a single battle, especially when they [Demosthenes]’ passage the sound tradition reads Σκιρωνίδης). S. Hornblower, citing OCD³ under the entry Sciron or Sciros, suggests a connection with the Attic festival of Skirophoria (2008: 822). 4 Thuc. 8.26. On the composition and origin of Therimenes’ force, see Gomme, Andrewes and Dover 1945- 1981 vol.5: 61; Hornblower 2008: 823. Thucydides, 8.17.1-3, narrates how Chalkideus and Alcibiades with twenty- five ships, of which twenty were Chians, outpaced the Athenians Strombichides and Thrasycles, slipped from their grasp, and caused Miletus to defect. This force apparently joined Therimenes, and thus, the number of Peloponnesian ships reached eighty (cf. Busolt 1893-1904: 1435; Gomme, Andrewes and Dover 1945-1981 vol.5: 27- 28). 5 Those certainly included Phrynichus, Onomacles and Scironides, and probably Strombichides and Thrasycles (Busolt 1893-1904: 1434 and no 1; Gomme, Andrewes and Gomme 1981: 63); Hornblower (2008: 825-6) ingeniously remarks that there must have been present Argive officers also. But how many there could have been we have no means of knowing.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Conditions of Dramatic Production to the Death of Aeschylus Hammond, N G L Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1972; 13, 4; Proquest Pg
    The Conditions of Dramatic Production to the Death of Aeschylus Hammond, N G L Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1972; 13, 4; ProQuest pg. 387 The Conditions of Dramatic Production to the Death of Aeschylus N. G. L. Hammond TUDENTS of ancient history sometimes fall into the error of read­ Sing their history backwards. They assume that the features of a fully developed institution were already there in its earliest form. Something similar seems to have happened recently in the study of the early Attic theatre. Thus T. B. L. Webster introduces his excellent list of monuments illustrating tragedy and satyr-play with the following sentences: "Nothing, except the remains of the old Dionysos temple, helps us to envisage the earliest tragic background. The references to the plays of Aeschylus are to the lines of the Loeb edition. I am most grateful to G. S. Kirk, H. D. F. Kitto, D. W. Lucas, F. H. Sandbach, B. A. Sparkes and Homer Thompson for their criticisms, which have contributed greatly to the final form of this article. The students of the Classical Society at Bristol produce a Greek play each year, and on one occasion they combined with the boys of Bristol Grammar School and the Cathedral School to produce Aeschylus' Oresteia; they have made me think about the problems of staging. The following abbreviations are used: AAG: The Athenian Agora, a Guide to the Excavation and Museum! (Athens 1962). ARNon, Conventions: P. D. Arnott, Greek Scenic Conventions in the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford 1962). BIEBER, History: M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theatre2 (Princeton 1961).
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Herodotus, Xerxes and the Persian Wars IAN PLANT, DEPARTMENT of ANCIENT HISTORY
    Herodotus, Xerxes and the Persian Wars IAN PLANT, DEPARTMENT OF ANCIENT HISTORY Xerxes: Xerxes’ tomb at Naqsh-i-Rustam Herodotus: 2nd century AD: found in Egypt. A Roman copy of a Greek original from the first half of the 4th century BC. Met. Museum New York 91.8 History looking at the evidence • Our understanding of the past filtered through our present • What happened? • Why did it happen? • How can we know? • Key focus is on information • Critical collection of information (what is relevant?) • Critical evaluation of information (what is reliable?) • Critical questioning of information (what questions need to be asked?) • These are essential transferable skills in the Information Age • Let’s look at some examples from Herodotus’ history of the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 BC • Is the evidence from: ― Primary sources: original sources; close to origin of information. ― Secondary sources: sources which cite, comment on or build upon primary sources. ― Tertiary source: cites only secondary sources; does not look at primary sources. • Is it the evidence : ― Reliable; relevant ― Have I analysed it critically? Herodotus: the problem… Succession of Xerxes 7.3 While Darius delayed making his decision [about his successor], it chanced that at this time Demaratus son of Ariston had come up to Susa, in voluntary exile from Lacedaemonia after he had lost the kingship of Sparta. [2] Learning of the contention between the sons of Darius, this man, as the story goes, came and advised Xerxes to add this to what he said: that he had been born when Darius was already king and ruler of Persia, but Artobazanes when Darius was yet a subject; [3] therefore it was neither reasonable nor just that anyone should have the royal privilege before him.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Politics and Policy in Corinth 421-336 B.C. Dissertation
    POLITICS AND POLICY IN CORINTH 421-336 B.C. DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by DONALD KAGAN, B.A., A.M. The Ohio State University 1958 Approved by: Adviser Department of History TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ................................................. 1 CHAPTER I THE LEGACY OF ARCHAIC C O R I N T H ....................7 II CORINTHIAN DIPLOMACY AFTER THE PEACE OF NICIAS . 31 III THE DECLINE OF CORINTHIAN P O W E R .................58 IV REVOLUTION AND UNION WITH ARGOS , ................ 78 V ARISTOCRACY, TYRANNY AND THE END OF CORINTHIAN INDEPENDENCE ............... 100 APPENDIXES .............................................. 135 INDEX OF PERSONAL N A M E S ................................. 143 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 145 AUTOBIOGRAPHY ........................................... 149 11 FOREWORD When one considers the important role played by Corinth in Greek affairs from the earliest times to the end of Greek freedom it is remarkable to note the paucity of monographic literature on this key city. This is particular­ ly true for the classical period wnere the sources are few and scattered. For the archaic period the situation has been somewhat better. One of the first attempts toward the study of Corinthian 1 history was made in 1876 by Ernst Curtius. This brief art­ icle had no pretensions to a thorough investigation of the subject, merely suggesting lines of inquiry and stressing the importance of numisihatic evidence. A contribution of 2 similar score was undertaken by Erich Wilisch in a brief discussion suggesting some of the problems and possible solutions. This was followed by a second brief discussion 3 by the same author.
    [Show full text]
  • ISTHMIA PANHELLENIC GAMES the Isthmian Games Or Isthmia Were
    ISTHMIA PANHELLENIC GAMES The Isthmian Games or Isthmia were one of the Panhellenic Games of Ancient Greece and were named after the isthmus of Corinth where they were held. Both the Isthmian and Nemean Games were held the year before and the year after the Olympic Games (the second and fourth years of an Olympiad), while the Pythian Games of Delphi were held in the third year of the Olympiad cycle. The Games were reputed to have originated as funeral games for Mericertes . Theseus, legendary king of Athens, expanded these funeral games from a closed nightly rite into fully-fledged athletic-games event, dedicated to Poseidon. Open to all Greeks, was at a suitable level of advancement and popularity to rival those in Olympia, which were founded by Heracles. Theseus arranged with the Corinthians, the Athenian visitors to the Isthmian games to be granted the privilege of front seats. At least until the 5th century BC the winners of the Isthmian games received a wreath of wild celery; later, it was altered to pine leaves’ wreath. Victors could also be honored with a statue or an ode. Besides these prizes of honor, the city of Athens awarded victorious Athenians with an extra 100 drachmas. From 228 BC or 229 BC onwards the Romans were allowed to take part in the games. The Games were always under the ownership of Corinth, apart a rather small period during the Roman empire after which, they flourished until Theodosius I suppressed them as a pagan ritual Before the games began, a truce was declared by Corinth to grant athletes safe passage through Greece.
    [Show full text]
  • View / Download 2.4 Mb
    Lucian and the Atticists: A Barbarian at the Gates by David William Frierson Stifler Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ William A. Johnson, Supervisor ___________________________ Janet Downie ___________________________ Joshua D. Sosin ___________________________ Jed W. Atkins Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classical Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 ABSTRACT Lucian and the Atticists: A Barbarian at the Gates by David William Frierson Stifler Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ William A. Johnson, Supervisor ___________________________ Janet Downie ___________________________ Joshua D. Sosin ___________________________ Jed W. Atkins An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classical Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright by David William Frierson Stifler 2019 Abstract This dissertation investigates ancient language ideologies constructed by Greek and Latin writers of the second and third centuries CE, a loosely-connected movement now generally referred to the Second Sophistic. It focuses on Lucian of Samosata, a Syrian “barbarian” writer of satire and parody in Greek, and especially on his works that engage with language-oriented topics of contemporary relevance to his era. The term “language ideologies”, as it is used in studies of sociolinguistics, refers to beliefs and practices about language as they function within the social context of a particular culture or set of cultures; prescriptive grammar, for example, is a broad and rather common example. The surge in Greek (and some Latin) literary output in the Second Sophistic led many writers, with Lucian an especially noteworthy example, to express a variety of ideologies regarding the form and use of language.
    [Show full text]
  • Author BC AD ACHILLES TATIUS 500? Acts of Paul and Thecla, of Pilate, of Thomas, of Peter and Paul, of Barnabas, Etc
    Author BC AD ACHILLES TATIUS 500? Acts of Paul and Thecla, of Pilate, of Thomas, of Peter and Paul, of Barnabas, etc. at the earliest from 2d cent. on AELIAN c. 180 AESCHINES 345 AESCHYLUS *525, †456 AESOP 1 570 AETIUS c. 500 AGATHARCHIDES 117? ALCAEUS MYTILENAEUS 610 ALCIPHRON 200? ALCMAN 610 ALEXIS 350 AMBROSE, Bp. of Milan 374 AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS †c. 400 AMMONIUS, the grammarian 390 ANACREON2 530 ANAXANDRIDES 350 ANAXIMANDER 580 ANDOCIDES 405 ANTIPHANES 380 ANTIPHON 412 ANTONINUS, M. AURELIUS †180 APOLLODORUS of Athens 140 APOLLONIUS DYSCOLUS 140 APOLLONIUS RHODIUS 200 APPIAN 150 APPULEIUS 160 AQUILA (translator of the O. T.) 2d cent. (under Hadrian.) ARATUS 270 ARCHILOCHUS 700 ARCHIMEDES, the mathematician 250 ARCHYTAS c. 400 1 But the current Fables are not his; on the History of Greek Fable, see Rutherford, Babrius, Introd. ch. ii. 2 Only a few fragments of the odes ascribed to him are genuine. ARETAEUS 80? ARISTAENETUS 450? ARISTEAS3 270 ARISTIDES, P. AELIUS 160 ARISTOPHANES *444, †380 ARISTOPHANES, the grammarian 200 ARISTOTLE *384, †322 ARRIAN (pupil and friend of Epictetus) *c. 100 ARTEMIDORUS DALDIANUS (oneirocritica) 160 ATHANASIUS †373 ATHENAEUS, the grammarian 228 ATHENAGORUS of Athens 177? AUGUSTINE, Bp. of Hippo †430 AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS †c. 390 BABRIUS (see Rutherford, Babrius, Intr. ch. i.) (some say 50?) c. 225 BARNABAS, Epistle written c. 100? Baruch, Apocryphal Book of c. 75? Basilica, the4 c. 900 BASIL THE GREAT, Bp. of Caesarea †379 BASIL of Seleucia 450 Bel and the Dragon 2nd cent.? BION 200 CAESAR, GAIUS JULIUS †March 15, 44 CALLIMACHUS 260 Canons and Constitutions, Apostolic 3rd and 4th cent.
    [Show full text]
  • Περίληψη : Spartan Admiral of the Peloponnesian Fleet During 411- 410 B.C
    IΔΡΥΜA ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ Συγγραφή : Ντόουσον Μαρία - Δήμητρα Μετάφραση : Ντόουσον Μαρία-Δήμητρα , Καμάρα Αφροδίτη Για παραπομπή : Ντόουσον Μαρία - Δήμητρα , "Mindarus", Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Μ. Ασία URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=8209> Περίληψη : Spartan admiral of the Peloponnesian Fleet during 411- 410 B.C. He transferred the ships from Miletus to the Hellespont in order to ensure the cooperation of the satrap Pharnavazus and to hinder the Athenians’grain supply from the northern coast of the Black Sea. He was defeated near Cynossema followed by a defeat near Abydus. In the spring of 410 B.C. Mindarus suffered the ultimate defeat from Alcibiades during the Cyzicus naval battle when he was killed. Τόπος και Χρόνος Γέννησης 5th c. BC - Sparta Τόπος και Χρόνος Θανάτου 410 BC – Cyzicus Κύρια Ιδιότητα Admiral 1. Introduction Mindarus was an admiral of the Peloponnesian Fleet during the Ionian War in the period 411 – 419 B.C. The main sources of information with regard to his activity are ancient authors, mainly Thucydides, Xenophon and Diodorus and it is almost exclusively confined to his military activity in the area of the Hellespont. 2. Biography In 411 B.C. Mindarus succeeded Astyochus as admiral of the Peloponnesian Fleet in Miletus. Discontented however from satrap Tissaphernes’attitude who did not keep his promise to reinforce the Spartan fleet with Phoenician ships, he headed accompanied by 73 ships towards the Hellespont, with the intention of accepting the proposal of Pharnabazus, the Persian satrap of Daskyleion, to instigate a rebellion of the coastal cities under Athenian rule which formerly belonged to the satrapy of Pharnabazus.
    [Show full text]
  • Topics in Lysistrata
    References in Lysistrata Old Comedy was a highly topical genre and the playwright expected his audience to be familiar with local identities and issues. The following list of identities mentioned in the play gives some indication of the difficulty faced by any producer trying to stage Lysistrata for modern audiences. Aeschylus: The tragic poet is mentioned briefly as the source of a ferocious oath that Lysistrata proposes to her comrades, in which a shield is to be filled with blood; the oath is found in Seven Against Thebes. Aristogeiton: A famous tyrannicide, he is mentioned briefly here with approval by the Old Men. Artemisia: A female ruler of Ionia, famous for her participation in the naval Battle of Salamis, she is mentioned by the Old Men with awe as a kind of Amazon. Bupalus: A sculptor who is known to have made a caricature of the satirist Hipponax. He is mentioned here briefly by the Old Men in reference to their own desire to assault rebellious women. Cimon: An Athenian commander, mentioned here by Lysistrata in connection with the Spartan king Pericleides who had once requested and obtained Athenian help in putting down a revolt by helots. Cleisthenes: A notoriously effete (degenerate) homosexual and the butt of many jokes in Old Comedy, he receives two mentions here, firstly as a suspected mediator between the Spartans and the Athenian women and secondly as someone that sex-starved Athenian men are beginning to consider a viable proposition. Cleomenes I: A Spartan king, who is mentioned by the Old Men in connection with the heroism of ordinary Athenians in resisting Spartan interference in their politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterintelligence
    ch5.qxd 10/18/1999 2:14 PM Page 190 Chapter 5 Counterintelligence As the shield is a practical response to the spear, so counterintelligence is to intelligence. Just as it is in the interest of a state to enhance its ability to in›uence events through the use of intelligence, it is in its interest to deny a similar ability to its opponents. The measures taken to accomplish this end fall within the nebulous boundaries of the discipline now known as counterintelligence.1 Was such a shield employed by the ancients? In general, yes— although, as with intelligence, this response must be quali‹ed in degree according to state, circumstance, and era. Assessments are, however, somewhat complicated by the use of stereotypes and propaganda by the ancients. Members of democratic states (i.e., the Athenians, who have left us a lion’s share of evidence) tended then—and still tend—to wish to conceive of their societies as open and free and of subjects of other forms of government as liable to scrutiny and censorship. In his funeral oration, Pericles declared that the Athenians “hold our city open to all and never withhold, by the use of expulsion decrees, any fact or sight that might be exposed to the sight and pro‹t of an enemy. For on the whole we trust in our own courage and readiness to the task, rather than in contrivance and deception.”2 Demosthenes similarly characterized the Athenians: “You think that freedom of speech, in every other case, ought to be shared by everyone in the polis, to such an extent that you grant it even to foreigners and slaves, and one might see many servants among us able to say whatever they wish with more freedom than citizens in some other 1.
    [Show full text]
  • “Phrynichus, Pericles and Praise”
    Kenneth Mayer “Phrynichus, Pericles and Praise” Brown Classical Journal 4 (1987) p. 37-42. In the eighth book of Thucydides’ history, the Athenian general Phrynichus argued that the Athenians should not fight the Spartan fleet at Miletus. He declared that a defeat would force Athens to capitulate, and rather than take that risk, he withdrew. Thucydides praises this decision in the following manner: (8.27.5) “And he seemed, not on the present occasion more than afterwards, nor in this thing alone but also in whatever situation Phrynichus found himself, to be not unwise.” 1 Thucydides’ praise of this decision has been called “surprising in view of the losses to which his strategy condemned Athens in the next month.”2 In addition, Thucydides later relates other decisions of Phrynichus’s which could hardly be called “wise”. It is also apparent from Thucydides and other sources that the Athenians did not appreciate Phrynichus’ wisdom more and more, but instead bitterly reviled him long after they slew him. Why then does Thucydides praise him and why in these terms? This paper will evaluate Phrynichus’ actions, and then discuss Thucydides’ praise here in light of his earlier praise of Pericles. From this comparison, a better understanding of Thucydides’ judgments emerges. The first step is evaluating the consequences of Phrynichus’ decision and the constraints under which he was placed. At the time of the withdrawal, the Athenians had 68 ships, while those of the approaching Syracusans and Peloponnesians were 55. In addition, 20 Chian and 5 Spartan ships were blockaded by the Athenians in Miletus harbor, and it is reasonable to assume that they were aware of the approaching Spartan fleet and would assist them if possible.3 Not only were the Athenians outnumbered by at least 12 ships, but several of their ships were troopcarriers and would be less effective in a battle at sea.
    [Show full text]