Comparación de la cantidad de nematodos en raíz en Capachica y

hoplite general that was the most important one. Theoretically this holds very well; if we examine the careers of Phaidros and Glaukon, we see that the office of the hoplite general is the last one they acquire. But, in practice, in a period during which there are hardly any pitched battles undertaken by Athens on her own behalf, what could be the practical use of the office of the hoplite general? There are very few clear references to the hoplite general in the inscriptions of our period and considerably fewer in literary passages. The first inscriptional reference occurs in IG

556, 1. 14: "6 axpaxeyoq 6 èttl xoc OTtXa”, c.305. The next reference is supposed to belong to the beginning of the third century and it concerns Olympiodoros {IG 11^ 2429, 1.8), but nothing excludes the possibility that it could be dated a few years earlier. At about the same time Charias is “axpaxriyôç èni xœv ôtcA-cov xexaypévoç” (assigned in charge of the

arms) {Pap. Oxyr. XVII, 2082, frg.l). Two more tenures belong to Phaidros

167 “Athens in the Early Hellenistic Period: Democracy, Grain Supply and the Reliance on Individuals”: Paper delivered at the Classical Association Conference, 1-4 April 1995.

of Sphettos; later on Glaukon was designated strategos epi ton hoplon

before 282/1 and strategos epi ta hopla in 2 6 6/5.^68

Leosthenes, Olympiodoros and Kallippos are the only cases of generals leading the army outside the borders. The precise title of the first in the Lamian War has not been preserved, but it is commonly assumed that he led the allied army in his capacity as hoplite general since it is he who, according to the Athenaion Politeia, was in charge of expeditions outside the borders of Attika (61.1).i^9 in addition, it has been argued that he must have been strategos autokrator (endowed with absolute power).i^^ Surely, the impression that one gets from Diodorus’ narrative is that Leosthenes was the supreme figure in the allied army. But to hold with Larsen that the allies used to their own advantage the machinery of the League of Corinth and formally elected him general with absolute authority is to regard the League of Corinth as a version of a Federal state like Aitolia or Achaia.1^1 If he had been appointed

strategos autokrator, this would have happened either in absentia., or during his brief return to Athens. That he organised the alliance was reason enough to assign him supreme command without formalities. His position in the Athenian army was ambiguous. It seems that above all he was regarded as a leader of mercenaries but he was incorporated in the framework of the polis as such. A mercenary, most probably in the service of Dareios, he returns to Athens at some point in the 320s to become a syntrierarch {IG i f 1631) and then a strategos epi ten choran in 324/3. He was also the one who arranged for 8000 mercenaries to be transported to Tainaron (Paus., 1.25.5; VIII.52.5). The band of mercenaries assembled at Tainaron had chosen him as their commander (D.S., XVII.111.1-3). Hyperides seems to be conscious of this ambivalence when he emphasizes that he became leader of both citizens and mercenaries: “Kal ^EviKfjv pèv ôuvapiv a'üaxrjaàpevoç, %% Ôè TtoXixiKfiç fiyepœv

168 Phaidros: IG iF 682, 11.30-43, 44-47. Glaukon: IG i f 3079, 11.13-15, 19-21; Hesp. 37, 1968, pjp.284-5, no.21.

169 Mathieu, “Guerre”, p.l69. Larsen, “Leagues”, p.64. “Leagues”, p.63.

K a x a a i d ç ” {E pit It is as if Hyperides is trying to remind his

fellow citizens that Leosthenes was their leader as well. It is significant that in spite of efforts to present Leosthenes as a hero equal or even superior to those of the fifth century, quite frequently Hyperides wavers between “fiyepœv” {E pit 3, 11,13) - a title appropriate to both a leader of mercenaries and a leader of a citizen army - and “aTpaTTjyôç” (1, 3,10).

Similarly the title of Kallippos who led the Athenian army against the Celts in 279 has not been preserved. Ironically, had their titles been preserved, they would have been the only examples of hoplite generals, together with Olympiodoros who campaigned to Elateia, leading the Athenian army abroad; it is possible to associate the hoplite generalship of Olympiodoros, referred to in IG i f 2429, with this campaign but this has to remain only a speculation.

The only time that we can be fairly certain that the hoplite general was involved in serious warfare is in 266 - in the middle of the Chremonidean War - when we find Glaukon elected hoplite general.

In most of the cases our evidence is quite fragmentary, but in combination with the absence of any other testimony we can be fairly sure that the hoplite generals achieved nothing too spectacular in the battlefield. However, whatever conclusions we draw, they do not conform with the evidence of the Athenaion Politeia (61.1) where the hoplite general is supposed to lead the Athenian army outside the borders of Attika. The main reason for this is that Athens hardly ever had the opportunity to lead an army abroad; warfare had been transferred inside

Attika and the basic problem and aim was to preserve Athens and Attika. Instead, we find the hoplite general being assigned non-hoplite duties. The case of Phaidros demonstrates that the office still carried great importance but it could be transformed in order to include other offices. The underlying principle is the change in warfare. The paralia

and the chora had acquired great importance. Instead of abolishing the office of the hoplite general the Athenians simply widened his field of

“and on the one hand he assembled a mercenary force and on the other he was appointed leader o f the civic forces”.

activities. From a certain point of view it can be regarded as lack of professionalism but from a different viewpoint it can be seen as concentration of powers.