Strategoi on the Bema:
The Separation of Political and Military Authority
in Fourth-Century Athens¹

Debra Hamel (Yale University)

 

The Ancient History Bulletin 9.1 (1995) 25-39

 

 

— 25 —

 

It has long been thought that increasing professionalism in the military and political spheres led in the fourth century to a de facto separation of powers between Athens’ strategoi and rhetores. Whereas during the fifth century, according to this view, political and military leadership most often resided in the same men, strategoi of the fourth century tended to abandon the bema to Athens’ rhetors.² This ‘traditional view’ of Athenian political and military leadership has recently been questioned by Lawrence Tritle.³ He argues that fifth- and fourth-century generals were not substantially different from one another in the range of their political activities. As I suggest below, however, Tritle’s argument for the continuity of the strategia in the classical period is not a persuasive refutation of the traditional view. Nor does the author adequately discuss a quite different phenomenon affecting fourth-century political leadership. In the conclusion of his most recent article on the strategia Tritle merely alludes to the emergence of rhetoric in the fourth century and its creation of a second avenue to political influence alongside the generalship.⁴ The rise of a class of political leaders who never served as strategoi is an issue which merits more extensive treatment in a critique of the traditional view of Athenian leadership. Accordingly, I offer here a more thorough reconsideration of the tenets of the traditional view. The analysis requires that two questions be addressed: (1) Is there evidence that generals were any less active politically in the fourth century than the fifth? (2) Is there evidence that the ratio of generals to

 

 

— 26 —

 

non-generals among Athens’ politically active was changed between the fifth and fourth centuries?⁵

Tritle is interested primarily in disproving the evidence of a passage in Plutarch’s Life of Phokion which suggests that, with a single exception, political and military leadership were mutually exclusive occupations in fourth-century Athens. Phokion alone of his contemporaries, the passage suggests, succeeded in uniting in his career both political and military activity:

Plut. Phoc. 7. 5.

Phokion saw that those who engaged in public affairs had divided the strategia and the bema among themselves as if by lot. Those who addressed the demos and proposed measures were one group, in which were Euboulos, Aristophon, Demosthenes, Lykourgos, and Hypereides; but Diopeithes, Menestheus, Leosthenes, and Chares augmented themselves by serving in the strategia and waging war. Seeing this situation, Phokion wanted to restore the political behavior of Perikles, Aristeides, and Solon, as being complete and distributed in both the political and military spheres.⁶

 

 

— 27 —

 

Against Plutarch’s evidence, Tritle notes that a number of generals are known to have addressed the assembly or proposed decrees in the fourth century. Among these is Leosthenes, whom Plutarch categorizes in the above passage as a strategos rather than a rhetor.⁷ In light of the political activity of Leosthenes and other generals, Tritle argues, Plutarch’s evidence for the withdrawal of fourth-century strategoi from political activity cannot stand.

Tritle’s identification of a number of politically active fourth-century generals does contradict Plutarch’s evidence of a strict dichotomy between political and military authority in fourth-century Athens: the activity of these individuals clearly demonstrates that generals of the period had not abandoned the bema altogether. But by identifying these strategoi Tritle does not demonstrate that fourth-century generals were as politically active as their predecessors. Since it remains possible that generals were less active in the political sphere in the fourth century than they had been previously, Tritle’s argument is not a persuasive refutation of the traditional view of fourth-century leadership.⁸

That view holds that there was less overlap among Athens’ political and military leaders in the fourth century than the fifth. The divergence of the two groups in the later period is attributed to two causes, (1) the partial withdrawal of generals from political activity, and (2) a similar withdrawal of rhetors from military activity (or, in other words, an increase in the participation of non-generals in politics). The assumption is that these two phenomena occurred in concert, but it is important to note that the second of these changes could have occurred independently of the first: generals, that is, can have remained as politically active as ever in the fourth century while men who never served in the strategia played a larger role in Athens’ political life than they had in the past. Whether both changes occurred or only one, the result would have been the same, an increased separation between political and military authority in fourth-century Athens as

 

 

— 28 —

 

strategoi came to constitute a smaller percentage of the city’s rhetores than they had previously. To assess the traditional view of Athenian leadership, it is necessary to consider whether our evidence suggests that either of these two changes in fact occurred.

I consider first whether the conclusion that generals withdrew to any extent from political activity in the fourth century is supported by literary evidence. Comments made by Isocrates and Aristotle, together with the passage of Plutarch cited above, are our principal sources for the separation of military and political authority in fourth-century Athens.⁹

Isoc. 8. 54-55:

So far are we different from our ancestors that they used to make prostatai of the city and elect as generals the same men, thinking that he who could give the best advice on the bema would also be able to give the best advice on his own. But we do the opposite. We do not think it appropriate to elect as generals, as if they were not intelligent, those whose advice we use on the most important issues. But those whom no one would take counsel with concerning their own affairs or those of the state, those men we send out as autokratores, as if they will be wiser there and will advise more easily concerning Hellenic affairs than concerning issues under consideration here.

 

 

— 29 —

 

Arist. Pol. 1305a 7-15:

In ancient times there was a change to tyranny when the same man was both demagogue and strategos. For the majority of early tyrants, pretty much, began as demagogues. The reason that this happened then but not now is that then demagogues (for they were not yet experienced speakers) were drawn from the military leaders. But now, with the development of rhetorical skill, those who are experienced speakers are demagogues, but because of their inexperience in warfare they do not attempt to gain power, except perhaps when such a thing has happened briefly.

Neither author provides evidence that Athens’ generals were any less politically active in the fourth century than they had been in the fifth. Isocrates reports that the Athenians of his day elected as generals men whose advice they did not value rather than those whom they consulted ‘on the most important issues’. The author’s remarks do not imply, however, either that these would-be advisors who were elected to the strategia were not politically active (they can regularly have given political advice which failed of approval, for example) or that generals were on the whole less politically active in the fourth century than the fifth. We are led to believe only that in the fourth century generals no longer numbered among Athens’ most influential citizens. Aristotle’s assertion that Athens’ demagogoi lacked experience in warfare in the fourth century likewise suggests that generals of the period were not political leaders. The remark does not imply, however, that fourth-century generals lacked political experience or were less politically active as a group than their predecessors.

Prosopographical evidence likewise lends no support to the conclusion that generals were less politically active in the fourth century than the fifth. The data presented in Table 1 below suggest that fourth-century generals were as likely as their predecessors to engage in political activity at some time in their lives: of the some 243 generals whose names are known to us from the fifth and fourth centuries, virtually the same percentage in both periods are known to have been politically active. Nor is there evidence that generals who engaged in political activity in the fourth century did so any less frequently than had politically active fifth-century generals: in both periods the median number of

 

 

— 30 —

 

attested instances of political involvement on the part of generals is two.¹⁰ If generals were in fact less active in politics in the fourth century than the fifth, their withdrawal from political activity in the later period is not reflected in our sources.

Our literary evidence does suggest, however, that the second of the two possible changes in Athenian leadership enumerated above in fact occurred. Isocrates and Aristotle agree in suggesting that non-generals were more prominent in politics in the fourth century than they had been previously. Isocrates complains that although it had once been the case that the same men served Athens as both political and military leaders, his contemporaries did not elect their prostatai to the strategia. Aristotle describes the same change in Athenian leadership: whereas Athens’ political leaders had once been drawn from the strategia, fourth-century demagogoi were inexperienced in warfare. Both authors are concerned with the lack of military experience of Athens’ fourth-century political leaders (their prostatai and demagogoi), that is to say, with those Athenians who were habitually, almost professionally, active in politics rather than with those whose political activity was only occasional.¹¹ To test their information against prosopographical evidence we must therefore separate Athens’ ‘political leaders’ of the fifth and fourth centuries from the larger body of Athenians whose political activity is not known to have been as extensive. I have used two criteria in identifying Athenians as political leaders. Listed in Table 2 below are (1) those Athenians for whom there is evidence of political activity in three or more separate years,¹² and (2) those whom the author of the Athenaion Politeia includes in his list of fifth-century Athenian prostatai (28.2-3).¹³ Some forty Athenians meet one or both of these criteria.¹⁴ Fourteen of these forty were politically active in or before 405/4,¹⁵ and thirteen of the fourteen (93%) are known to have been generals. Another twenty-six political leaders were active after

 

 

— 31 —

 

405/4. Of these, only six (23%) are attested as generals, and only one of the six, Phokion, is known to have been politically active after 340.

It is clear from this evidence that the claims of our literary sources are exaggerated: Athens’ fourth-century political leaders were not to a man lacking in military experience, as Isocrates and Aristotle imply. The conclusion suggested by our prosopographical evidence is less sweeping than that indicated by these authors: in the fifth century, the above data suggest, Athens’ political leaders were most often also her military leaders, but fourth-century political leaders were less likely than their predecessors to serve as strategoi. Indeed, the combination of regular political and military leadership in a single career appears to have become a rarity in the fourth century. Plutarch, although he has exaggerated considerably the division which existed between fourth-century strategoi and rhetors, was evidently correct in his assessment of Phokion as an exceptional leader. A handful of Athenians are known to have combined military leadership with frequent political activity in the fourth century, but with the exception of Thrasyboulos, whose career ended in 389, none is known to have held the strategia more than three times. Phokion alone of later fourth-century generals certainly united in his career extensive political activity with regular service in the strategia on the Periklean model.

If we broaden our study to include all of Athens’ known politically active citizens, both her political leaders and those whose political activity was only occasional, we find that in this larger group as well the ratio of generals to non-generals is considerably lower for the fourth century than the fifth. Between 23% and 25% of the 122 politically active citizens known from the fifth century are attested as generals (see Table 3). In the first half of the fourth century (404/3-356/5), however, fewer than 16% of Athens’ known politically active served in the strategia, and in the latter half of the century (355/4-322/1) fewer than 9% are attested as generals.

The conclusions I would draw from the evidence presented in this paper are as follows. In the fourth century generals constituted a smaller percentage of Athens’ politically active citizens than they had previously. This reduction in the ratio of generals to non-generals among Athens’ politically active - and the concomitant reduction in the political influence of Athens’ generals - was the result of the increased political activity in the period of men who never served in Athens’ strategia. Insofar as non-generals influenced Athens’ political decisions more often in the fourth century than they had previously, military and political authority were indeed more separate in the fourth century than the fifth, as the traditional view of Athenian leadership contends. But modification of this view is nevertheless in order. There is no support in our sources for the conclusion that fourth-century generals were less politically active than their fifth-century predecessors. The political influence of generals was merely diluted in the fourth century by the increasing role of non-generals in politics. It can therefore no longer be assumed that the withdrawal of generals from political activity was a cause of the increasing separation between military and political authority in fourth-century Athens.

 

 

— 32 —

 

TABLES

 

 

— 33 —

 

 

 

— 34 —

 

Notes to Tables

 

1     Except where indicated in the notes, the information in these tables is taken or derived from the index and text of Develin, AO.

Return to tables

2     The following served in the strategia between 501/0 and 405/4. Question marks indicate doubt that the man ever served as general. Underlining indicates that the individual was politically active, though not necessarily during the same years that he served in the strategia.

 

 

I include Thrasyboulos (3033) among known, politically active generals of both the fifth and fourth centuries (see below) since his career straddles the turn of the century. He is known to have served as a general nine times between 411/10 and 389/8; he proposed legislation in 403 and 401; and he addressed the assembly in 396 and 395.

Return to tables

3     The following served in the strategia between 404/3 and 322/1. I should note that a proposal dated to 368 is mistakenly attributed in the index of AO to the general Autokles (515). It belongs rather under no. 520. The same mistake is not made in the text (p. 256). Autokles may have been politically active: Xenophon (Hell. 6. 3. 7) says he was reputed to be an E)PISTREFH\S R(H/TWR (cf. M. H. Hansen, ‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 21 n. 56). But since Autokles may have been known for oratory in the dikasteria rather than in the ekklesia, I have not included him among the politically active.

 

 

— 35 —

 

 

The following served or may have served in the strategia both before and after 356/5. Checks [in this on-line version represented by "Yes"] indicate that service in the period is accepted as certain. Question marks indicate doubt. Shading marks those for whom political activity is attested.

 

— 36 —

 

in the late 390’s Iphikrates undertook to capture the city (E)PEBA/LETO DE\ KAI\ *I)FIKRA/THS O( *A)QHNAI=OW KATALABE/SQAI TH\N PO/LIN ...). He was prevented from doing so, however, by the Athenian demos, and he consequently resigned his position (cf. Xen. Hell. 4. 8. 34). Diodorus does not imply, however, that Iphikrates addressed the assembly, and it seems more likely that his communication with the demos in this instance was carried on by letter. (b) At Xen. Hell. 6. 2. 39 we are told that Iphikrates bid (KELEU=SAI) the Athenians to appoint Kallistratos and Chabrias as his colleagues for an expedition in 373/2. This may mean that Iphikrates addressed the assembly, but I am not convinced that it does. (3) At 2. 124 Aeschines refers to Leosthenes’ ability as an orator: *LEWSQE/NHS ... O(\N OU)K O)KNOU=SI/ TINES A)POFAI/NESQAI META\ *KALLI/STRATON TO\N *A)FIDNAI=ON TW=N A)/LLWN MA/LISTA EI)PEI=N DU/NASQAI. As was true of Autokles (see above), however, it is possible that Leosthenes had displayed his speaking ability outside of the ekklesia. (4) Finally, Demosthenes at 18. 70 attributes the proposal of at least one decree to a certain Diopeithes, whom a scholiast on the passage identifies as the general of that name. The scholiast’s information may be nothing more than conjecture, however. Develin, AO, 354, understands the passage to refer to Diopeithes of Sphettos (911).

For the sake of argument, however, let us include Eunomos (1179) among the generals of 404/3-356/5 and add to the politically active of the same period Autokles (515), Diopeithes (910), Eunomos (1179), Iphikrates (1449), and Leosthenes (1801). The relevant statistics are changed as follows:

 

— 37 —

 

501/0-432/1: 12/58-13/50; 431/0-405/4: 19/97-20/95; 404/3-322/1: 17/94-19/85; 404/3-356/5: 9/53-12/49; 355/4-322/1: 6/44-10/42; 501/0-322/1: 45/239-49/220.

Return to tables

6     Those Athenians for whom a third year of political activity is dubious and who are not named as prostatai at Ath. Pol. 28. 2-3 are listed in Table 2 with question marks after their names.

Return to tables

7     No reference is made in the index of AO to Miltiades’ political activity, but see p. 56 of the text. Two instances of activity are possible. (1) A number of sources attribute to Miltiades authorship of a mobilization decree issued prior to the battle of Marathon (Arist. Rhet. 1411a; Dem. 19. 303 and schol.; Ael. Arist. 3. 160 [Behr] and schol.; Plut. Mor. 628e; cf. Paus. 7. 15. 7). No source earlier than the fourth century refers to the decree, however, and it is likely to be spurious. That Miltiades was the proposer of a mobilization decree is accepted by N. G. L. Hammond, ‘The Campaign and Battle of Marathon’, JHS 88 (1968), 33-34, and W. W. How, ‘Cornelius Nepos on Marathon and Paros’, JHS 39 (1919), 53. Doubts are expressed by A. J. Podlecki, The Life of Themistocles (Montreal and London, 1975), 160-161; P. J. Rhodes, The Athenian Boule (Oxford, 1972), 17 n. 4; and R. W. Macan, Herodotus. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books (London, 1895), II 219. See also C. Habicht, ‘Falsche Urkunden zur Geschichte Athens im Zeitalter der Perserkriege’, Hermes 89 (1961), 20, who questions the historicity of the decree primarily because the information which Plutarch adds (Mor. 628e), that the decree was passed during the prytany of Aiantis, is probably not historical. (2) We are told by Herodotus (6. 132) that Miltiades addressed the Athenians regarding a campaign he later undertook against Paros.

Return to tables

8     I do not include among Perikles’ generalships those for which Plut. Per. 16. 3 is the only evidence.

Return to tables

9     Plut. Phoc. 8. 1 tells us that Phokion was general 45 times, but I note here only those generalships for which there is independent evidence. In support of Plutarch’s evidence for Phokion’s numerous strategiai see L. Tritle, ‘Forty-Five or What? The Generalships of Phocion’, LCM 17 (1992), 19-23.

Return to tables

10     The following were politically active between 501/0 and 432/1. Underlining indicates that the individual was a general at some time in his life, not necessarily in the same years he was politically active. Question marks indicate doubt the individual was ever a general.

 

 

The following were politically active between 501/0 and 432/1 and/or between 431/0 and 405/4. Checks mark those for whom political activity in the period is accepted as certain. Question marks indicate doubt. Shading marks those who are attested as generals.

 

 

The following were politically active between 431/0 and 405/4. Question marks indicate doubt that the individual ever served in the strategia.

 

 

— 38 —

 

 

Of the above Demosthenes (792), Miltiades (2003), Thoukydides son of Melesias (3012), and Xanthippos (3128) are not listed in the index of AO as having engaged in political activity. Thoukydides and Xanthippos are attested in our sources as active politicians (Ath. Pol. 28. 2), however, and Demosthenes and Miltiades appear to have addressed the assembly in connection with military expeditions. For Miltiades’ political activity see Notes to Tables, n. 7. As for Demosthenes, Thucydides tells us that the Athenian expedition into Boeotia in 424/3 was prompted by certain Boeotians who were interested in establishing democracies in their cities and who had intrigued with the generals of Demosthenes and Hippokrates (4. 76. 1-2). No reference is made to deliberation at Athens, but if the expedition was discussed — as it presumably was — we may imagine that the generals were compelled to address the Athenian people or boule: it was they who were most knowledgeable about the Boeotian situation.

Return to tables

11     The following were politically active between 404/3 and 356/5.

 

 

The following were politically active before and/or after 356/5. A question mark after the reference number marks individuals who may never have served as generals.

 

 

 

— 39 —

 

The following were politically active between 355/4 and 322/1.

 

 

If we include among the politically active of 404/3-356/5 the generals whom Hansen and Tritle identify as rhetores of the period (see Notes to Talbes, n. 3), the statistics given in Table 3 are changed as indicated below. Despite the addition of five politically active generals, the implication of the evidence is not altered: the percentage of politically active Athenians who are known to have served in the strategia is considerably smaller in the fourth century than in the fifth.

 

 

Return to tables

12     Cf. M. H. Hansen, ‘The Number of Rhetores in the Athenian Ecclesia, 355-322 B.C.’, in The Athenian Ecclesia II (Copenhagen, 1989), who identifies for the same period (1) 82 individuals who proposed decrees of the people (pp. 102-105), (2) a further 13 to 14 proposers (other than the above 82) whose names are preserved only incompletely in inscriptions (pp. 105-110), (3) 20 who addressed the ekklesia but are not known to have proposed legislation (pp. 115-116), and (4) another 13 who are attested as spokesmen of decrees of the boule (pp. 116-117).

Return to tables

13     The total is 319 rather than the expected 320 (122 + 198) because I include Agyrrhios (44) among the politically active of both 501/0-405/4 and 404/3-322/1. He was politically active in both periods.

In his index Develin actually lists 365 different politically active individuals, of whom the names of 66 are incomplete. (Alternate names which appear in the index are not included among the 365.) Of the 66 incomplete proposers I ignore all but those 16 who I was confident could not be identified with known generals. These are nos.: 18, 19, 976, 1470, 2222, 2838, 3210, 3219, 3237, 3238, 3242, 3258, 3305, 3342, 3495, and 3783. I have also added four politically active citizens whom Develin does not list as such in his index, nos. 792, 2003, 3012, and 3128. Cf. Notes to Tables, n. 10.

Return to tables

14     The percentages in this column are derived from the following ratios: 501/0-432/1: 12/54-14/49; 431/0-405/4: 17/74-20/71; 404/3-356/5: 10/83-12/77; 355/4-322/1: 9/136-11/131

Return to tables

 

 

Footnotes

 

1     I am grateful to Victor Bers and David Seidemann for their comments on drafts of this paper.

Return to text

2     For this view of Athenian leadership see in particular M. H. Hansen, ‘The Athenian “Politicians”, 403-322 B.C.’, in M. H. Hansen, The Athenian Ecclesia II (Copenhagen, 1989), 17-21. Also id., The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes, trans. J. A. Crook (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass., 1991), 268-271; J. Ober, Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (Princeton, 1989), 119-121; R. K. Sinclair, Democracy and Participation in Athens (Cambridge, 1988), 45-46; J. K. Davies, Wealth and the Power of Wealth in Classical Athens (New York, 1981), 124-131; W. R. Connor, The New Politicians of Fifth-Century Athens (Princeton, 1971), 143-147; S. Perlman, ‘Political Leadership in Athens in the Fourth Century B.C.’, PdP 22 (1967), 170-173, and id., ‘The Politicians in the Athenian Democracy of the Fourth Century B.C.’, Athenaeum 41 (1963), 346-348; C. Mossé, La Fin de la Démocratie Athénienne (Paris, 1962), 269-273; A. H.M. Jones, Athenian Democracy (Baltimore, 1957), 127-128.

Return to text

3     ‘Continuity and Change in the Athenian Strategia’, AHB 7[.3-4] (1993), 125-129; Phocion the Good (London, Sydney, and New York, 1988), 101-102 and 161 n. 60; and, in particular, ‘Leosthenes and Plutarch’s View of the Athenian Strategia’, AHB 1[.1] (1987), 6-9. Cf. ‘Virtue and Progress in Classical Athens: The Myth of the Professional General’, AncW 23 (1992), 71-89, in which Tritle argues that the distinction frequently drawn between fourth-century generals and rhetors is ‘illusory and stems from a historiographical myth’ (p. 71). He traces the evolution of the traditional view from its origins in a 19th-century essay by Lord Macaulay (‘On the Athenian Orators’, in The Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches of Lord Macaulay [London, 1871; essay orig. pub. 1824]) through modern historians. See also J. T. Roberts, ‘Paradigm Lost: Tritle, Plutarch and Athenian Politics in the Fourth Century’, AHB 1[.2] (1987), 34-35, who is apparently persuaded by Tritle’s argument against the traditional view.

Return to text

4     ‘Continuity’, 128-129.

Return to text

5     Three remarks regarding terminology are necessary by way of a preface. To avoid much periphrasis I use the terms ‘general’ and ‘strategos’ in this paper to signify any Athenian who is known to have served in the strategia at some time in his life. References to generals addressing the assembly, therefore, ought not be understood to imply that the individual concerned delivered his speech during his tenure as strategos. He may rather have addressed the assembly as a private citizen or when serving in some other official capacity. For the same reason I refer frequently to the ‘political activity’ of Athens’ generals. Although much might be included under this rubric, I mean to denote by the term only the delivery of a speech before the boule or ekklesia or the proposal of psephismata. (See M. H. Hansen, ‘Rhetores and Strategoi in Fourth-Century Athens’, in The Athenian Ecclesia II [Copenhagen, 1989], 32-33, for a list of those he includes as political leaders in his inventory of rhetores and strategoi. Service as an ambassador might in fact entail the delivery of speeches in the boule and ekklesia [cf. M. H. Hansen, ‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 20-21; Aesch. 2.45-46]. I have nonetheless not included envoys among the politically active: when delivering their reports ambassadors did not necessarily express opinions of their own or make proposals.) Finally, I use the term ‘fifth century’ loosely to refer to the period from 501/0 to 405/4. ‘Fourth century’ refers to the years between 404/3 and 322/1.

Return to text

6     I have borrowed Jennifer Roberts’ translation (‘Paradigm Lost’, 34) of POLITEI/AN as ‘political behavior’.

Return to text

7     In addition to Phokion (2496) and Leosthenes (1802), Tritle (‘Continuity’, 128; ‘Leosthenes’, 8-9 and n. 11; cf. Phocion, 102 and 195 n. 29) names as politically active generals Ephialtes (1010), Exekestides (1279), Iphikrates (1449), Kallistratos (1564), Kephisophon (1610), the elder Leosthenes (1801), Meidias (1921), and (possibly) Diopeithes (910). For discussion of these generals see Notes to Tables, n. 3. The numbers used throughout this paper to identify generals refer to Index I of R. Develin, Athenian Officials 684-321 B.C. (Cambridge, 1989) = AO.

Return to text

8     The traditional view does not require that fourth-century generals have withdrawn entirely from political activity. It assumes only that they were less politically active than their predecessors. Cf. M. H. Hansen, Athenian Democracy, 269: ‘After the democratic restoration of 403/2 a split in political leadership between rhetores and strategoi began to develop: the generals who won (and lost) the wars for the Athenians . . . very seldom took the platform as speakers . . . .’; Hansen, ‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 17: ‘After the restoration of the democracy, however, a sharp division developed, so that policy-making was left to a group of rhetores who were no longer elected strategoi, whereas the wars were conducted by a group of professional strategoi who tended [emphasis added] to keep away from the bema on the Pnyx.’ Elsewhere, however, Hansen exaggerates the separation between fourth-century strategoi and rhetores (‘The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography’, Historia 42 [1993], 164): ‘But at that time [355-322 B.C.] the political leaders had split up into rhetores (who no longer served as strategoi) and strategoi (who no longer took the floor and addressed the people as rhetores).’ (In the period with which Hansen is here concerned, however, as many as ten generals are known to have been politically active: see Table 1. Hansen himself is of course perfectly aware that some generals were politically active after 355 [‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 49-50 n. 47].)

Return to text

9     The frequent juxtaposition in fourth-century sources of the terms R(H/TORES and STRATHGOI/ (e.g., Lys. 13. 7; Dem. 2. 29 = 13. 20, 9. 38, 18. 170, 23. 184; Isoc. 5. 81; Aesch. 3. 146; Din. 1. 112, 3. 19; cf. Aesch. 3. 229) suggests that political and military functions were not always executed during that period by the same men. The terminology tells us nothing, however, about any change between the fifth and fourth centuries in the frequency with which generals and non-generals engaged in political activity. On the phrase R(H/TORES KAI\ STRATHGOI/ used by the Athenians to refer to their political leaders, see Hansen, ‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 5-10, and cf. ‘Initiative and Decision: the Separation of Powers in Fourth-Century Athens’, GRBS 22 (1981), 368-370.

Return to text

10     Information about the political activity of the generals listed in the notes to Table 1 is gleaned from Develin, AO, except that the evidence of political activity discussed in Notes to Tables, nn. 7 and 10, are taken into account.

Return to text

11     M. H. Hansen, ‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 13-16, similarly distinguishes between Athens’ ‘political leaders’ and her idiotai —  those whose political activity was occasional.

Return to text

12     I have used the information compiled in Develin, AO, to determine the number of years in which the political activity of individual Athenians is attested.

Return to text

13     This criterion is used by M. H. Hansen (‘Athenian “Politicians”’, 17) to compile a list of Athens’ fifth-century political leaders. Twelve prostatai are listed in the passage in pairs of opposed democratic and aristocratic leaders. The list concludes with Theramenes (2982) and Kleophon (1672), and we are thereafter told that the two-obol dole which Kleophon introduced was eventually abolished by a certain Kallikrates. It does not seem to be the author’s intent to include Kallikrates among Athens’ prostatai: no Athenian is paired with Kallikrates as the leader of an opposing faction. I therefore have not identified him as one of Athens’ political leaders. (He is included, however, in Hansen’s list of prostatai.) I should note that Kallikrates is not attested as a general.

Return to text

14     The majority of those listed in Table 2 are included by virtue of their attested political activity. Seven, however, meet both the above criteria (Themistokles, Aristeides, Perikles, Nikias, Kleon, Theramenes, and Kleophon), and five are identified as political leaders solely because of the testimony of the Athenaion Politeia (Xanthippos, Miltiades, Kimon, Ephialtes, and Thoukydides).

Return to text

15     For this purpose I include Agyrrhios (44) among fourth-century political leaders. His political career began before 405/4 and extended into the fourth century. Theramenes’ (2982) political activity likewise extended beyond 405/4. He addressed the ekklesia and council in 404/3, but since his career (and life) ended soon thereafter, I have counted him among the politically active of the fifth century only.

Return to text

  Return to beginning