Commanders and Warlords in Fourth Century BC Central Greece

José Pascual González

1 Introduction

Obviously, it will not be possible to discuss in detail in one chapter, the long and significant series of military commanders that fought in mainland Greece, the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean during the fourth century BC, in the pe- riod before Alexander.1 Therefore, while the great commanders of the period2 included king Agesilaus II of Sparta3 and Athenian strategoi, such as Chabrias, Iphicrates or Timotheus,4 this account will concentrate on central Greece and the Phocian and Theban military commanders: the Phocians, Philomelus, Onomarchus, Phayllus and Phalaecus5 and the Thebans, Gorgidas, Pelopidas, Epameinondas and Pammenes.6 These military leaders were largely respon- sible for or contributed to a number of extraordinary military innovations and developments which will be summarised to better examine the true nature and conditions of military command in the area extending from the frontiers of Attica to the limits of Thessaly and Macedonia. At the same time, the analy- sis allows reflection on the extraordinary multipolar and conflictive nature of

1 This chapter has been produced as part of the research project HAR2014-53885-P funded by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. All dates are BC unless otherwise stated. On central Greece in the fourth century BC before Alexander see Munn 1997: 66– 106; Buckler 2003; Seager 2001: 176–186; Roy 2001: 187–208; Rhodes 2006: 190–225, 244–256; Buckler and Beck 2008. 2 See Lengauer 1979. 3 Niese 1894: 796–804; Poralla 1984, nº. 9, pp. 6–8; DeVoto 1982; Cartledge 1987; Hamilton 1991; Shipley 1997. 4 Chabrias: Kirchner 1899: col. 2017–2021; Kirchner 1901 nº. 15086; Davies 1971: 560–561. Timotheus: Klee 1937: col. 1324–1329; Kirchner 1901 nº. 13700; Davies 1971: 507 ff; Burich 1994; March 1994. Iphicrates: Kirchner 1901 nº. 7737; Davies 1971: 248 ff. See also Develin 1989. 5 Philomelus: Fiehn 1938: col. 2524–2525. Onomarchus: Stegemann 1939: col. 498–506. Phayllus: Stier 1938: col. 1902–1903. Phalaecus: Lenschau 1938: col. 1612–1613. See also Buckler 1989; Mclnnerney 1999. 6 Gorgidas: Swoboda 1912: col. 1619–1620; Pascual 1996. Pelopidas: Reincke 1937: col. 375–380; Georgiadou 1997. Epameinondas: Swoboda 1905: col. 2674–2707; Fortina 1958. Pammenes: Lenschau 1939: col. 298–299; Buckler 1989. See also Hack 1975 and Buckler 1980.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���8 | doi ��.��63/9789004354050_007 90 Pascual González fourth century Greece. Finally, these leaders’ military command transcended the theatre of classical central Greece and projected their influence over the Hellenistic period. However, these commanders, their achievements, the setbacks they suf- fered and the innovations they instigated or provoked, affected not only the states they fought, i.e. in terms of foreign policy, but can also be understood, at least in part, within the framework of the states they lived in, i.e. the domes- tic situation. In other words, their political and military command ultimately brought about a profound transformation of their own states. However, what kind of state are we talking about? It is true we know of a large number of po- leis in central Greece during the Classical period,7 but practically all of them belonged to confederacies.8 It is well known that central Greece during the Classical and Hellenistic periods was the perfect environment for federalism; the federal state was the principal type of state and the one that engaged in international relations and entered into treaties. It has long been noted that federalism implies the existence of dual citizen- ship. Thus federal citizenship or sympoliteia was seen as superimposed on the citizenship of each of the confederacy’s member states, autopoliteia, or patria or idia politeia.9 Nevertheless, it is rarely indicated that these two forms of citi- zenship were asymmetrical in terms of the rights conferred by each of them, therefore, the federal sympoliteia related exclusively to participation in federal institutions. In the words of Aristotle (Politics 3.1275 a20): ‘A citizen pure and simple is defined by nothing else so much as by the right to participate in ju- dicial functions and in office’,10 not by the right of epigamy or holding land and property anywhere in federal territory. These rights could be separated

7 On Boeotian poleis: Hansen 2004: 431–461. Phocis: Oulhen 2004: 399–430. 8 Without entering into a detailed analysis of the characteristics of a State, a definition can be established that is useful for this study, recognising a State by the existence of a series of differentiated institutions, which had their own officials, in which decisions are taken from a central political body in relation to a specific territory. A State can also be defined by the existence of a stratified society based on legal status, wealth and specialisation of labour (see Hall and Ikenberry 1989: 1, 95; Mann 1986: 109, 112¬113, 117, 126, 135). Thus a Confederacy can be defined as a political community that has a central political organisa- tion and includes the citizens of all the member states; it has assembly-based, representa- tive or elective political institutions and its territory is defined by a series of frontiers (see Larsen 1968; Giovannini 1971; Aigner Foresti et al. 1994; Beck 1997; Corsten 1999; Pascual 2001). 9 Xenophon, Hellenica 5.2.14; 7.4.33; Larsen 1968: XV; Sordi 1994: 4–5; Bearzot, 2004: 45–56. 10 Arist. Pol. 3.1275 a20: πολίτης δ᾽ ἁπλῶς οὐδενὶ τῶν ἄλλων ὁρίζεται μᾶλλον ἢ τῷ μετέχειν κρίσεως καὶ ἀρχῆς.