1.5. OBJETIVOS DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN
2.2.3. Tipos de juegos online
practice of creating offices ad hoc. There were years in which there was urgent need to prepare for a siege and they could therefore very well use more than one general epi ten paraskeueir, or in case of a naval campaign they needed a general epi to nauticon (or epi ton neon). The need for the protection of the countryside led to a concentration of duties and power as well as a significant ‘confusion’ of the duties of the hoplite general with those of the general epi ten choran.
The generalship epi toi Peiraiei disappears after 307. Before this date it is to be found in certain ephebic inscriptions (Reinmuth 8, 9, 15 ): “[ax]pa[T]r|[yôç èTtl] tc o ri8ipai[eî Kôvco]v TipoOéo ’AvacpA-baTioq”; the
same man is praised in another contemporary i n s c r i p t i o n . 1 4 9 Philokles was “axpaTTiYÔç èjtl xf|v M ouvuxlav Kai xàc veœpia” (general in charge of the Mounychia Hill and of the shipyards) in 325/4 (Din., III.1). In 324/3 Dikaiogenes was “axpaxTjyôç èTtl xœi I le ip a ie r while Pherekleides was “axpaxrjyôç è,ni xeî ’Akxeî” in 324/3.150 it appears that the terms epi toi Peiraiei and epi ten M ounychian were interchangeable. In an inscription of 307/6 we read “èTci xob Ileipaicûç
148 iQ iŸ 2968, 2969, 2970, 2971, 2973, 1492, 11.107 6EG 3.116, etc, 149 Reinmuth 9, col. II, 11.10-11; Reinmuth 8; I Gl l 2976,1.10. 150 j G i f 1631,11.380-381; Reinmuth, no 15.
KaxaaTaGelç” {IG 11^ 1260, 1.7). It is noteworthy that as a strategos epi tou Peiraieos he goes to the rescue of Sounion, a task that should have been undertaken by the strategos epi tei A ktei, had the office been still in existence. It could be that the office still existed and that the general in charge of the Peiraieus assumed responsibility for both the harbour and the A k te only for the moment. However there is no mention of a
strategos epi toi Peiraiei diflei this date.
In the same inscription there occurs another ‘confusion’ of offices:, it appears that the duties of the general epi tei A k te i were taken over by the strategos epi ten choran: “Kal vbv X£tpoxovri08]l[ç t)]7cô xo0 Ôf|p,o\)
axpaxTiCyoç èTtl xf]v xcbpav è7ti]pep,éXr|xai lo u v io u K ai fPap,vo\)vxoç Kal xfjg àX]kr\ç, TtapaXiaç Ttdariç" (11. 21-23) .i^i
The prevalent opinion among scholars is that the division of generalship epi ten choran into generalship epi ten paralian and ep ’ Eleusinos took place after the end of the Chremonidean War. On the basis of IG i f 1260 J. & L. Robert have argued that specialisation of the generals is attested already by the end of the fourth century and that the office of the strategos epi ten paralian was not created after the Chremonidean War.^52 n has to be made clear that specialisation or steps towards it is different from régionalisation of office, in the sense of a legal division of the chora. As a matter of fact the very inscription shows that the paralia and Eleusis are still united: a general epi ten
choran is praised because he took care of “Ttdariç xfjç TcapaXlaç”. This does not point to a distinct generalship; as it is formulated generalship epi
ten choran has been identified with command epi ten paralian.
The wording of the decree for Epichares is instructive: Epichares is not described as “%£ipoxovT|0elç èTtl xf|v 7tapaA,lav”. His cheirotonia
preceded his assignment of command epi ten paralian. During the Chremonidean War the danger for Athens was from the sea and, naturally, the Athenians would take great pains to protect the paralia
151 “and now having been elected general in charge of the countryside, he takes care of Sounion and Rhamnous and the rest o f the coastal area”.
from being ravaged and to prevent Antigonos Gonatas from setting a firm foot on the west coast. It is another ad Aoc solution.
Generalship epi tous xenous also appears spasmodically and it is not always clear whether it is distinct from generalship epi ten choran.
Lachares is described as such in Pap. Oxyr. XVII 2082 and the general in
IG i f 379 is ^^xeipotovTjOelç èTtl xcov ^évcov” (elected by show of hands in charge of the mercenaries). On the other hand Phaidros is designated as “yevopevoç èTtl xoi)ç Çévo'oç” (designated commander of the mercenaries) {IG i f 682 1. 25 ) which implies that he was not elected general epi tous xenous, but that he was simply given command of the mercenaries. It is the only time in the decree that Phaidros'^ military office is not preceded by the participle “xeipoxovT|08iç” .
The decree in honour of Phaidros of Sphettos {IG i f 682 ) is at the same time extremely informative and a source of great bafflement. There are various tantalising problems with regard to his military career interwoven with his political affiliations. Let us start with his generalship epi ten choran and his command of the mercenaries: “Kal èTtl
xf]v x œ p av xeipoxovriBelç TtXeovàKiç K al èTtl xobç ^évouç yevôpevoç xplç” (11.24-5).153
Dinsmoor has argued that his three commands epi tous xenous
were generalships distinct from those epi ten choran.^^^ W. Schwan on the other hand holds that “Tt>-eovàKiç” (many times) and “xplç” (three times) are identical.155 Contrary to Dinsmoor T. L. Shear advanced convincingly the view that there was not enough time between the mid 290s and the archonship of Kimon in 288 to accommodate numerous generalships epi ten choran and another three commands epi ton xenon}^^ An additional argument in support of Shear’s view is the participle that introduces Phaidros’ command of the mercenaries. Instead of “x^^po'COVTjOelç” we find “yevôpEvoç”. In conclusion, the most
153 “having been elected in charge o f the countryside many times and having been designated in charge of the mercenaries three times”.
154 Archons, p.66.
155 i?£-Supp. 6,1935, col. 1091. 156 “Kallias”, p.66, n. 193.
plausible hypothesis is that while a strategos epi ten choran he was also sometimes designated commander of the mercenaries; and certainly
pleonakis is not identical with tris.
* * *