The Late Fourth Century BCE

chapter 7 The Late Fourth Century BCE

The system of military training and service described in the Ath. Pol. and docu- mented in the over thirty extant inscriptions of the Lykourgan Period is not only one of the better attested phases of the institution, but has set a high standard by which scholars have evaluated its later iterations. The Lykourgan ephebeia was also very short-lived, lasting a little over a decade. The following chapters explore the Hellenistic ephebeia at Athens, an institution that per- sisted nearly three hundred years and in which generations of young members from Athenian elite families participated. Pélékidis attempted a similar history, but was limited in part by the paucity of inscriptions from the late fourth to the early second centuries BCE. Understandably, this led to a focus on the later second and first centuries, for which the epigraphic evidence is richer, and a tendency to project later developments back on to the earlier, less well attested periods. Since the publication of his history, new epigraphical evidence has been unearthed, shedding much needed light on periods of history that were previously veiled in darkness. In addition to new evidence, recent publications by Habicht and others have clarified much of the history of Hellenistic Athens and have provided a framework with which to contextualize any new history of the Athenian ephebeia of this period. As will be discussed in the following chapters, the ephebeia that appears in the later evidence is significantly different than the Lykourgan. Before turning attention to it, however, this chapter addresses the fate of the Lykourgan ephebeia and considers the pressing question regarding the origin of its Hellenistic successor. Scholars disagree about the date and circumstances of its creation. Fueling the debate is the dearth of evidence for the late fourth and early third century BCE in general and the ephebeia specifically. The political and social turmoil of this age offers fertile soil for speculation and scholars have assigned the beginning of this phase of the institution to a period as early the oligarchy of Demetrios of Phaleron or to one as late as the oligarchy of Demetrios Poliorketes. This chapter will review the state of the question over the origin of this stage of the institution and demonstrate that the issue is far from settled.

1 The Lamian War and the Ephebeia

With Alexander’s sudden death on 10 June 323 BCE, the Athenians made im- mediate preparations for war to liberate Greece from Macedonian oppression

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004433366_008 172 chapter 7 and sought allies among those Greeks harmed by the policies of the king.1 As the ekklesia mobilized Athens’ army and navy, Leosthenes, a private Athenian citizen, assembled 8,000 mercenaries at Tainaron (D.S. 17.111.2–3). He was later elected hoplite general for 323/2 BCE and eventually the commander- in-chief of all the allied forces.2 The Athenians entered alliances with Lokris, Phokis, the Aetolian League and many states in the Peloponnese, including Sikyon. This was no Khaironeia. For under Leosthenes’ leadership, they de- feated a Boiotian army, occupied Thermopylai, and joined forces with the Aitolians. More importantly, they scored a stunning victory over Antipatros’s Macedonian phalanx and compelled the old general to take refuge in Lamia, a small town in Thessaly that later gave its name to this war. These successes, however, were undermined by the untimely death of Leosthenes, who was killed in a minor skirmish, and by the withdrawal of the Aitolians forces due to the protracted length of the siege. By the spring of 322 BCE, Macedonian reinforcements arrived from Asia Minor to relieve Antipatros. At Amorgos, the larger Macedonian fleet crushed the Athenian warships and a short time later the battle-experienced Macedonian soldiers overwhelmed and soundly de- feated the smaller allied army of citizen-soldiers and their mercenaries under the Athenian Antiphilos at Krannon. What role, if any, did the ephebes play in the Lamian War? Diodoros states that the Athenians passed a decree in which citizens up to the age of forty should be called up for service. Of these, seven tribes should be ready to campaign beyond the frontiers, the other three should guard Attike and its borders (18.10.2, 18.11.3). Given the fact that eighteen and nineteen year old Athenians did not normally campaign abroad, it is most likely, then, that citizens of ephebic age stayed home. What role, if any, did the ephebes play in the war in Attike? According to Diodoros, citizens from three tribes guarded Attike by manning the fortresses in the khora. As the weakest, least experienced and least knowledgeable of the soldiery, it is unlikely that the ephebes would have played a role in actual pitched battle, unless the entirety of Athens’ hoplite forces was on campaign. As in earlier periods of Athenian history, they may have continued to serve as guards.

1 Histories of this war include Ferguson 1911, 15–19; Williams 1995, 33–51; Hammond and Walbank 1988, 107–17; Trittle 1988; Tracy 1995, 23–9; Habicht 1997, 36–42. On the role of Samos in Athens’ decision to enter the war, see id. 1996, 397–405. 2 D.S. 17.3.3; Hyp. 6.3. Leosthenes son of Leosthenes of Kephale was actively engaged in the military life of Athens. According to IG II2 1631 (324/3 BCE) lines 500 and (323/2 BCE) lines 601–2, 606, he helped outfit Athenian naval vessels. Before that, he served as strategos of the khora in (most likely) 329/8 BCE (T1.20 left side lines 2–6) during which he watched over the ephebes. For this inscription, see Tracy 1995, 23–6.