Mr. R. J. Lane Fox read an early draft of this paper and suggested numerous improvements. Mrs. Maud Gleason convinced me that more respect should be paid to the English language. Professor W. G. Forrest, in whose epigraphy class the notion presented here was first aired, has provided much sage advice at all stages. I am, of course, responsible for all faults that remain.

¹ For details of this man's life cf. Perrot, G., ‘Notice sur la vie et les travaux de Désiré Raoul-Rochette’, CRAI (1906), pp. 638–701.Google Scholar The biographer regarded him as ‘… l'homme qui, pendant la première moitié du siècle dernier, a été en France le représentant le plus autorisé de l'archéologie classique…’ Among his varied contributions to learning was a work, Sur les heureux effets de la puissance pontificate au moyen âge (1816/18).

² Raoul-Rochette, D., Antiquités grecques du Bosphore cimmerien (Paris 1822), p. 175Google Scholar and plate XIV.

³ For various editions cf: CIG 96; CIA 193; IG ii 193; RIG 1472; IG ii² 399; Ziebarth, E., Beiträge zur Geschichte des Seeraubs und Seehandels im alten Greichenland (Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar, app. I, n. 48; Moretti, L., Iscrizioni storiche ellenistiche (Florence 1967)Google Scholar, n. 2. I use the following abbreviations in the apparatus: RRP = Raoul-Rochette, plate XIV; RR = Raoul-Rochette; B = Boeckh; K = Kirchner; M = Moretti; P = Potter.

⁴ Dinsmoor, W. B., The Archons of Hellenistic Athens (Cambridge 1931) 27Google Scholar sought to identify the orator with Demades II son of Demeas II, the grandson of the fourth-century politician. His argument was based on the presence of συμπρόεδροι in the prescript. These officials are now known to have appeared in prescripts as early as the 330s, cf. Henry, A. S., The Prescripts of Athenian Decrees (Leiden 1977), 39–41.Google Scholar For the family in general cf. APF 3263 (pp. 99–102).

⁵ Συναγωνίζομαι and ἀγωνίζομαι tend to be used interchangeably; compare: IG ii² 448. 53–5: πρ]|οείλετο τελεντῆσαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων ἀγ[ωνιαζόμεν]|ος ὑπὲρ τῆς δημοκρατίας κτλ. (honours for Euphron of Sicyon at Athens, 318/17); IG ii ² 558. 11–14: ὅπως δ᾿ ]ἂν ἐφάμιλλον ἦι πᾶ|]σι συναγωνίζ]εσθαι ἀπροφασίστω|[ς τῆι τε τῶν] βασιλέων προαιρέσει|[καὶ τῆι τῶ]ν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθερίαι κτλ. (honours for Oxythemis of Larissa at Athens, 303/2); IG ii² 650. 14–17: ἐπιμελεῖται δὲ|[καὶ τῆς συνκομιδῆς το]ῦ σίτου τῶι δήμωι ὅπως ἂ|[ν ἀσφαλέστατα δια]κομίζηται συναγωνιζό|[μενος τῆι τού δή]μου σωτηρίαι κτλ. (honours for Zenon, admiral of Ptolemy, at Athens, 286); IG ii ² 666. 17–20: κα]ὶ τοῦ πολέμου γενομένου [ἀ]νὴρ ἀγα[θὸ]ς ἦ[ν περὶ τὸν δῆμον κ]|[αὶ] ἀγωνιζόμενος ὑπ[ὲρ αὐτοῦ ἐποίησεν ὅσα παραγγέλλοι ὁ σ]|[τρατη]γὸς, κτλ. cf. IG ii² 667. 6–8, another copy of the honours for Strombichos at Athens, 266); IG ii ² 680 = SIG ³ 408. 11–14: ἐφ᾿ οὓς καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἐξέπεμπε|[ν] τούς τε ἐπιλέκτους καὶ τοὺς ἱππεῖς συναγωνιουμέν|[ους] ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς σωτηρίας. (Decree of Kybernis at Athens accepting the Aetolian invitation to the Soteria, archonship of Polyeuktos (date in dispute, cf. Habicht, C., Untersuchungen zur politischen Geschichte Athens im 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich 1979),pp. 133–4Google Scholar; in the light of the implications of Nachtergael's, arguments, Les Galates en Grèece et les Soteria de Delphes (Brussels, 1977), 223–4Google Scholar, such caution is necessary); Agora Inv. I 7295 shows some differentiation in meaning: 11. 28–30: καὶ ἐπειδὴ παραγενόμενος Δημήτριος καὶ πε|ριστρατοπεδεύσας ἐπολιόρκει τὸ ἄστυ, ἀγωνιζόμενο|ς ὑπὲρ τοῦ δήμου Καλλίας καὶ ἐπεξιὼν μετὰ τῶν στρατι|ωτῶν τῶν μεθ᾿ αὑτοῦ καὶ τραυματίας γενόμενος, 11. 40–4: καὶ ἀναπλεύ|σας πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον ταῖς πρεσβείαις τα|ῖς ἀποστελλομέναις ὑπὸ τοῦ δήμου συναγωνιζόμενος. For a further discussion see Robert, L., ‘Koresos d'Éphèse,’ Hellenica xi–xii (1960) 138 n.1.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Brulé, P., La Piratie crétoise hellénistique (Paris 1978), 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ For the ‘Etruscan Menace’ as early cf. IG ii² 1629 = Tod 200, 222–30 and in general Strabo v, 232; ix, 477; SIG ³ 1225; IG xi, 148, 73. The use of an ethnic to describe any sort of pirate is unusual and suggests that the threat from these people was considered severe. This would support the suggestion of Schmitt, H., Rom und Rhodos (Munich 1957), 43–6Google Scholar that the oftdebated dealings between Rome and Rhodes towards the end of the fourth century had to do with an effort to suppress Etruscan pirates.

⁸ See appendix.

⁹ Dow, S., ‘The Athenian Honours for Aristonikos of Karystos, Alexander's ΣΘΑΙΡΙΣΤΗΣ’), HSCP 67 (1963) 81.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Cf. Walek, T., ‘Les opérations navales pendant la guerre lamiaque’, Rev. phil. 48 (1924) 23–30Google Scholar for a collection of the evidence. His interpretation of the campaign, which has the Macedonian fleet sailing off to Amorgos after defeating the Athenians off the Malian gulf will not please people with a sense of geography. For the suggestion that this text has some thing to do with the Lamian War cf. Insc. Cret. iii, p. 110.

¹¹ Plut. Phoc. 25. 1: πορθουμένης δὲ παραλίας ὑπὸ Μικίωνος ουχνοῖς Μακεδόσι καὶ μισθοφόροις ἀποβεβηκότος εἰς Ῥαμνοῦντα καὶ κατατρέχοντος τὴν χώραν ἐξήγαγε τοὺς ᾿Αθηναίους ἐπ᾿ αὐτόν. Droysen suggested that Mikion was commanding a division of Kleitos', fleet (Geschichte des Hellenismus, ii (Gotha 1874) 69).Google Scholar The new date for Amorgos (cf. Ashton, N. G., ‘The Naumachia near Amorgos in 322 B.C.’, BSA 72 (1977) 10–11Google Scholar) and the possibility that Mikion was a Samian (Berve, Alexanderreich, n. 529) make Droysen's idea all the more attractive.

¹² IG ii² 448. 60–2: ἀφείλοντο [αὐτὸν] | τὰς δωρεὰς οἱ ἐν τεῖ ὀλιγαρχίαι πολιτευόμεν[οι καὶ] | τὰς στήλας καθεῖλον.

¹³ Plut. Phoc. 26. 3; Diod. xviii. 18. 2.

¹⁴ For an analysis of Agis' support cf. McQueen, E. I., ‘Some Notes on the Anti-Macedonian Movement in the Peloponnese in 331 B.C.,’ Historia 27 (1978) 45–51.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Aesch. iii. 167: ὁμολογῶ τὰ Λακωνικὰ συστῆσαι, ὁμολογῶ Θετταλοὺς καὶ Περραιβούς; Diod. xvii. 62. 4: προεκαλέσατο δὲ πρὸς τὴν ἀπόστασιν τοὺς Ἕλληνας καὶ ὁ περὶ τὴν Θρᾴκην νεωτερισμὸς κατὰ τοὺς ὑποκειμένους καιροὺς γενόμενος … 6 τούτου δὲ περὶ ταῦτ᾿ ὄντος οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καιρὸν ἔχειν ὑπολαβόντες τοῦ παρασκευάσασθαι τὰ πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον παρεκάλουν τοὺς Ἕλληνας συμφρονῆσαι περὶ τῆς ἐλενθερίας.

¹⁶ Aesch., iii. 166.

¹⁷ Diod. xvii. 62. 7: Πελοποννησίων δ᾿ οἱ πλείους καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τινὲς συμφρονήσαντες ἀπεγράψαντο πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ κατὰ δύναμιν τῶν πόλεων καταγράφοντες τῶν νεῶν τοὺς ἀρίστους κατέλεξαν στρατιώτας πεζοὺς οὐκ ἐλάττους τῶν δισμυρίων, ἱππεῖς δὲ περὶ δισχιλίους; this passage is highly rhetorical and should be taken as referring to the total of his forces, including mercenaries. For the number of mercenaries cf. Dein. i. 34: ὅτε Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν ἁπαντες ἐξεστράτευσαν, ᾿Αχαιοὶ δὲ Ἠλεῖοι τῶν πραγμάτων ἐκοινώνουν, ὑπῆρχον δὲ ξένοι μύριοι κτλ. cf. Bosworth, A. B., A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander i (Oxford 1980) 222–Google Scholar. The total Lakoman muster in the later fifth century came to about 7,372 (HCT iv, pp. III f.) of which 6,000 seems to have been regularly used on a summer's campaign. The decline in the number of Spartiates, which may not have been as rapid as it is usually made out to be (cf. Forrest, W. G., A History of Sparta 950–192 B.C. ² (Oxford 1980) 134f.Google Scholar; his suggestion of a textual corruption at Xen. Hell. vi. 4. 15 is supported by Dion. Hal. Antiq. Rom. ii. 17.2: Σπαρτιᾶται μέν γε πταίσαντες μάχῃ τῇ περὶ Λεῦκτρα, ἐν ᾗ χιλίους καὶ ἑπτακόσιους ἄνδρας ἀπέβαλον κτλ.) would not have affected the overall size of the muster, only the number of élite troops. In 222 there were still 6,000 Lakonians in Kleomenes' phalanx at Sellasia (Plut. Agis and Kleom. 28. 5). Thus 16,000 out of 22,000 in Agis' army would have been Lakonian or mercenary. For the numbers in Antipater's force cf. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M., The Origins of the Peloponnesian War (London 1972) 377.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Arr. An. ii. 13.4: Φαρνάβαζος δὲ καὶ Αὐτοφραδάτης … αὐτοὶ δὲ ἑκατὸ ναυσὶ ταῖς ἄριστα πλεούσαις ἀναγ〈αγ〉όμενοι ἐς Σίφνον κατέσχον. καὶ παρ᾿ αὐτοὺς ἀφικνεῖται ᾿῀Αγις ὁ Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ μιᾶς τριήρους, χρήματά τε αἰτήσων ἐς τὸν πόλεμον καὶ δύναμιν ναυτικήν τε καὶ πεζικὴν ὅσην πλείστην ἀξιώσων συμπέμψαι οἱ ἐς τὴν Πελοπόννησον.

¹⁹ Arr. An. ii. 15. 2–5; Q.C. III, 13, 15; cf. Bosworth, , Commentary on Arrian, pp. 233–4.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cawkwell, G. L., ‘A Note on Ps. Demosthenes 17,’ Phoenix 15 (1961) 74–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Arr. An. ii. 13. 6: ᾿῀Αγις δὲ παρ᾿ Αὐτοφραδάτου τάλαντα ἀργυρίου λαβὼν τριάκοντα καὶ τριήρεις δέκα, ταύτας μὲν Ἱππαίαν ἄξοντα ἀποστέλλει παρὰ τὸν ἀδελφὸν τὸν αὑτοῦ ᾿Αγησίλαον ἐπὶ Ταίναρον. καὶ παραγγέλλειν ἐκέλευσεν ᾿Αγησιλάῳ, διδόντα τοῖς ναύταις ἐντελῆ τὸν μισθὸν πλεῖν τὴν ταχίστην ἐπὶ Κρήτης, ὡς τὰ ἐκεῖ καταστησόμενον.

²² Q.C. iv. 8. 15: ‘Amphoterus deinde, classis praefectus, ad liberandam Cretam missus,—namque et Persarum et Sparta-norum arrais pleraque eius insulae obsidebantur,—ante omnia mare a piraticis classibus vindicare iussus: quippe obnoxium praedonibus erat, bello utrimque in regem converso.’ Cf. Bosworth, A. B., ‘The Mission of Amphoterus and the Outbreak of Agis' War’, Phoenix 29 (1975) 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²³ Arr. Succ. 1. 16: πρῶτα μὲν ἐπὶ Κυδωνίας ἐς Κρήτην ἐστάλη, ἔνθεν δὲ ἐς Κυρήνην διέβαλε μετὰ στρατιᾶς εἰς ἑξακισχιλίους συντελούσης; cf. Thuc. iv. 53. 3.

²⁴ Badian, E., ‘Agis III’, Hermes 95 (1967) 173–92Google Scholar for a forceful statement of this view.