AIO 811 Alliance with Peloponnesian cities following battle of Mantinea, 362/1 BC

Alliance with Peloponnesian cities following battle of Mantinea, 362/1 BC

AIO 811 Date: 362/1 BC

ἐπὶ Μόλωνος ἄρχοντος (362/1). συμμαχία Ἀθηναίων καὶ Ἀρκάδων καὶ Ἀχαιῶν καὶ Ἠλ- είων καὶ Φλειασίων. ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμ- ωι, Οἰνηὶς ἐπρυτάνευεν· Ἀγάθαρχος Ἀγαθάρχο Ὀῆθε- (5)ν ἐγραμμάτευ[εν]· Ξάνθιππος Ἕρμειος ἐπεστάτει. Πε- ρίανδρος εἶπεν· εὔξασθαι μὲν τὸγ κήρυκα αὐτίκα μ- άλα τῶι Διὶ τῶι Ὀλυμπίωι καὶ τῆι Ἀθηνᾶι τῆι Πολιά- δι καὶ τῆι Δήμητρι καὶ τῆι Κόρηι καὶ τοῖς Δώδεκα [θ]- εοῖς καὶ ταῖς Σεμναῖς θεαῖς, ἐὰν συνενείγκηι Ἀ[θη]- (10)ναίων τῶι δήμωι τὰ δόξαντα περὶ τῆς συμμαχία[ς, θυ]- [σί]αν καὶ πρόσοδον ποιήσασθα[ι], τελουμένων [ἀγαθῶ]- [ν, κα]θότι ἂν τῶι δήμωι δοκῆι. τα[ῦ]τα μὲν ηὖχθ[αι. ἐπει]- [δὴ δ]ὲ οἱ σύμμαχοι δόγμα εἰσήνειγκαν εἰς τ[ὴν βουλ]- [ὴν, δ]έχεσθαι τὴν συμμαχίαν καθὰ ἐπαγγέλ[λονται ο]- (15)[ἱ Ἀρ]κάδες καὶ Ἀχαιοὶ καὶ Ἠλεῖοι καὶ Φλε[ιάσιοι, κα]- [ὶ ἡ βο]υλὴ προβούλευσεν κατὰ ταὐτά, δεδό[χθαι τῶι δ]- [ήμωι· εἶ]ναι συμμάχους τύχηι ἀγαθ[ῆι τοῦ δήμου εἰς] [τὸν ἀεὶ] χρόνον Ἀθηναί[ων τὸν δῆμον καὶ τοὺς συμμά]- [χος καὶ Ἀ]ρκάδ[ας καὶ Ἀχαιοὺς καὶ Ἠλείους καὶ Φλει]- [ασίους . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ³⁴ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (20)[. . δ]ὲ Ἀχ[αι . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ³² . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. .]αν τὴν [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ³³ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [πό]λεων μη [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ³² . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. .]εραν μηδὲ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ³⁰ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. .] ἐν τῆι στήλ[ηι ταύτηι. ἐὰν δέ τις ἴηι ἐπὶ τὴν Ἀττι]- (25)[κὴ]ν ἢ τὸν δῆμον [καταλύηι τὸν Ἀθηναίων ἢ τύραννον] [κα]θιστῆι ἢ ὀλι[γαρχίαν, βοηθεῖν Ἀρκάδας καὶ Ἀχαι]- [ὸς] καὶ Ἠλείους κ[αὶ Φλειασίους Ἀθηναίοις παντὶ σ]- [θε]νει καθότι ἂν [ἐπαγγέλλωσιν Ἀθηναίοι κατὰ τὸ δ]- [υν]ατόν· καὶ ἐάν [τις ἴηι ἐπὶ ταύτας τὰς πόλεις ἢ τὸν] (30)δῆμον καταλύε[ι τὸν Φλειασίων ἢ ἐὰν τὴν πολιτεία]- ν τὴν Ἀχαιῶν ἢ τ[ὴν Ἀρκάδων ἢ τὴν Ἠλείων καταλύηι ἢ] μεθιστῆι, ἢ φυγα[δεύηι τινάς, βοηθεῖν Ἀθηναίους τ]- ούτοις παντὶ σθ[ένει καθότι ἂν ἐπαγγέλλωσιν οἱ ἀ]- δικούμενοι κατ[ὰ τὸ δυνατὸν. ἡγεμονίαν δὲ ἔχειν ἐ]- (35)ν τῆι αὑτῶν ἑκά[στους. ἐὰν δέ τις ἄλλο δοκῆι ἁπάσαις] [τ]αῖς πόλεσι πρ[οσθεῖναι, ὅ τι ἂν δόξηι εὔορκον εἶν]- αι. ὀμόσαι δ’ [ἐν ἑκάστηι πόλει τὰ μέγιστα τέλη Πελο]- ποννησίων, [τῶν δ’ Ἀθηναίων τοὺς στρατηγοὺς καὶ το]- ὺς ταξιάρ[χους καὶ τοὺς ἱππάρχους καὶ τοὺς φυλάρ]- (40)χους καὶ τ[οὺς ἱππέας . . . . . . . . . . . . ²³ . . . . . . . . . . .] traces

Previous - IG II² 111 Next - IG II² 113
Translated text

References:

AIO 811 (Translated text) (AIO)

IG II² 112 (PHI)

SEG 54.111 (ll. 10-11)

Syll.³ 181

SdA II 290

Lawton 24

RO 41

Axon 265 (Axon)

Translation by: Stephen Lambert, P. J. Rhodes

Images: Acropolis Museum - (1)
Krateros - (1)
Ohio - (1)

Monument type: Stele

Inscription type: Decree (Council and People)

Findspot: Acropolis (South slope) (EM 7044)
Findspot: Acropolis (Acropolis Museum NM 1481)

Transliterations on Places on

[1] The relief depicts Zeus enthroned to the right (cf. 1. 7), Athena standing to the left (cf. l. 7), and another female divinity between them (once believed to be Peloponnesos, but now thought to be Zeus’ consort, Hera, see Lawton). Cf. C. Ruggeri, Gli stati intorno a Olimpia. Storia e costituzione dell' Elide e degli stati formati dai perieci elei (400-362 a.C.) (2004), 198 n. 649. [2] This alliance belongs in the aftermath of the important battle of Mantinea, which was fought at the end of the Athenian year 363/2 between Thebes and her allies and Sparta and her allies. Thebes prevailed, but her leader, Epaminondas, was killed. In effect the battle weakened both the main Greek alliances, paving the way for Philip II, who acceded to the Macedonian throne in 359, to seize the initiative. In the aftermath of the battle a common peace treaty was made, which, however, excluded Sparta. Among the Theban allies in the battle had been a faction of Arkadians including Tegea and Megalopolis, while the Spartan allies had included Athens (for the alliance of 369 between Athens and Sparta, see RO 31 n. 1), Elis and Achaia, and a faction of Arkadians led by Mantinea. Athens had had an alliance with Arkadia since 366 (Xen. Hell. 7.4.2-3). In the peace treaty the Mantinean faction claimed to represent Arkadia (Diod. 15.89.1-2, cf. J. Buckler, The Theban Hegemony, 371-362 BC, 1980, 260-61), and this was perhaps also the case in this alliance. The small Peloponnesian city of Phleious, which together with Corinth had made peace with Thebes in 365 (Xen. Hell. 7.4.10-11), is not mentioned in Xenophon’s account of the battle (Xen. Hell. 7.5). Apart possibly from Phleious, therefore, this alliance would seem to comprise Athens and the Peloponnesian allies of Sparta in the battle. It would seem to result from an approach to Athens and her League (ll. 14-15) by the Peloponnesian cities, perhaps following immediately the common peace (which, by excluding Sparta, may in effect have loosened the diplomatic ties between these cities and Sparta, inclining them to seek stronger ties with Athens), or triggered by the return of Thebes to the Peloponnese in 361 to support the Megalopolitan faction of Arkadia (Diod. 15.94.1-3). [3] Perhaps the Periandros who reformed the trierarchic system in 358/7 ([Dem.] 47.21, cf. J. K. Davies, Athenian Propertied Families, p. 464). [4] With A. J. Heisserer and R. Hodot, ZPE 63 (1986), 111 (SEG 54.111), we now restore ll. 11-12 τελουμένων [ἀγαθῶ|ν] in place of [τούτω|ν] on the basis of the parallel with SEG 36.750 (Mytilene). [5] Vows of this kind, though known from non-Attic inscriptions (cf. n. 4), are not common in the Attic record. The other well-preserved example is of the same year and concerns the despatch of a cleruchy to Potidaia (IG II² 114, ll. 6-12). It was to the Twelve Gods, the Semnai and Herakles. As R. Parker, Polytheism and Society (2005), 406, notes, gods were selected to suit the context (Herakles perhaps in his capacity as “leader”, Hegemon, being appropriate for a cleruchy, cf. Xen. Anab. 4.8.25, 6.2.15, 6.5.24). In our case there is a deft combination of Attic, Peloponnesian and Panhellenic connotations: Zeus Olympios was worshipped in Athens at the Olympieion south of the acropolis (cf. Thuc. 2.15.3-4), but was also the presiding deity of Olympia in Elis, of the Panhellenic Olympic Games, and more generally of the Peloponnese (note his inclusion also in the relief, n. 1); Athena Polias is above all the presiding deity of the Athenian acropolis and the Panathenaia, the Athenian counterpoint, as it were, to the Olympic festival (and is also in the relief); the two goddesses of Eleusis represent the other potent pole of Attic religion, with its Mysteries and their broad Panhellenic appeal; the Twelve (Olympian) Gods were obviously suitable in an inter-polis context, as well as being the dedicants of the well-known altar in the Athenian agora which marked the centre point of Attica (Thuc. 6.54.6, cf. IG II³ 4, 2). The Semnai, “Awesome Goddesses” or Furies, worshipped in a cave by the Areopagos (cf. Parker, 52, IG II³ 1, 1025, SEG 52.48a F1), were included here no doubt as potential harriers of those who failed to fulfil their vows. What is vowed is a sacrifice and an “approach”, prosodos, usually translated “procession”, and approaches in procession might well have been envisaged, but the usual word for “procession” is pompē, while in decree language prosodos is most familiar as the term used for right of access to the Council or People commonly granted to foreign honorands, and prosodos here also in a sense parallels the “dedication” (anathema) to the gods which regularly accompanies grants of money for a sacrifice made to honour Athenian officials. We should envisage ritual "approaches" by representatives of the Athenian People to the gods named in their primary Athenian sanctuaries, culminating in sacrifices. [6] Here the allied Council, synedrion, seems to have taken the initiative, putting a proposal to the Athenian Council, which then formulated a probouleuma in the same sense. Other decrees seem to imply a different procedural arrangement, though throughout the Second Athenian League the Athenian Assembly seems to have retained power of final decision (cf. RO 31; in RO 44 there is no sign that the allied Council was consulted). As far as Athenian procedures are concerned, this decree is apparently a “hybrid”, in other words a probouleumatic decree (attributed to both Council and People, l. 3) which has, however, been somewhat modified in the Assembly (ll. 16-17). [7] Interestingly, unlike in the famous anti-tyranny law of 337/6, IG II³ 1, 320, Athens seeks here to protect herself against oligarchy as well as tyranny. The difference is perhaps one of orientation: towards the Macedonian monarchy/tyranny in 337/6, towards the Peloponnesian oligarchies here. [8] This wording implies that, of the Peloponnesian states party to this alliance, only Phleious is democratic. In the other cities Athens undertakes to support existing constitutions, albeit that implicitly they are not democratic. Compare the explicit commitment to the freedom of the allies to choose their preferred constitution made by Athens in the Prospectus of the Second Athenian League, RO 22, ll. 19-21. The constitutional commitments made by Athens in this alliance are a mark of the political instability of the Peloponnese consequent upon the weakness of Sparta since 371.

Added: 29 Jul 2014
Updated: 6 Aug 2024
Feedback

ID: AIO_811