¹ The following abbreviations are used:

² I am here following the chronology used in HM 2, which is based mainly on Hammond, DSW. That proposed by Buckler 148–95 is to me unconvincing.

³ See HM 2.270–3, 279 and 286.

⁴ They were the subject of dispute earlier, according to Demosthenes (D. 1.22, in 349); Alexander later acquired them (Just. 11.3.2 exemplo patris).

⁵ See HM 2.320.

⁶ Those of the Chalcidic peninsula in general.

⁷ The date which is usually given for this is 344; see Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius 2 (1967), 165.Google Scholar

⁸ When Halus was captured, it was delivered over to Pharsalus which enslaved the population (D. 19.39 and 334). It may well have joined Onomarchus during his march along this coast in 353 or 352.

⁹ Isoc. 5.7.

¹⁰ For Cypsela see Athenae. 469a, and for comment Badian 62 n. 43.

¹¹ Arist. HA 9.36.620a, and Mir. 11.8.841bl5; see Griffith in HM 2.252f. Of the lakes ‘inland of (ὑπρ) Amphipolis the southern one (Cercinitis) is too close to Amphipolis to have lain in Cetriporis’ kingdom. It is therefore the northern one (Prasias).

¹² See HM I Map 1 and P. 14.

¹³ See my article in Antichthon 26 (1992), 30–41.Google Scholar

¹⁴ P-C 229 had no doubt that both the raiding force and the blockading force were carried by Athenian ships. There may have been pirates acting in collusion with Athens.

¹⁵ The date for Philip's raids on Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros, and for Athenian cleruchs leaving the Chersonese in this passage of Aeschines is controversial. I give my reasons at Antichthon 26 (1992), 31Google Scholar for dating the events to 355/4. Most scholars have dated them to late 348 or early 347 as a consequence of the fall of Olynthus (e.g. Griffith in HM 2.331, Cawkwell 92 with 198 n. 2, and Wirth 77 with n. 14); but Athens suffered no naval defeat in 349/8, and she would not have countenanced a flight then by her cleruchs from the Chersonese.

¹⁶ D. 23.183 and FGrH 115 (Theopompus) F 101. Cersobleptes was a son of the Odrysian king Cotys (see HM 2.195). There was an Odrysian king whom Isocrates called ‘the old Amadocus’ (5.6), probably the Amadocus who was active c. 390 (X. HG. 4.8.26). Then there were a father and a son called Amadocus, and it was the son who made alliance with Philip against Cersobleptes (FGrH 115 (Theopompus) F 101). It is uncertain whether ‘the old Amadocus’ was the same person as the father of Philip's ally; for Theopompus did not say that the father was a king. It seems that in Philip's time Cetriporis, Amadocus and Cersobleptes were all members of the Odrysian royal family and were therefore called loosely ‘fratres’ by Justin. Griffith in HM 2.282f. and Badian 59 n. 31 differed from one another about the Amadoci.

¹⁷ Griffith in HM 2.282f. discussed the Scholiast but did not mention Justin 8.3.14-15. Beloch, GG² 3.2.282f., followed by Markle, Peace 41, placed the Scholiast's war in spring 347, but they both failed to notice Justin 8.3.14–15.

¹⁸ Markle, Peace 43 n. 3 held that it was the envoys on the second embassy who saw Cersobleptes' son; but if the Scholiast to Aeschin. 2.81 and Just. 8.3.14–15 refer to the same episode, the timing given by Justin indicates that the envoys of the first embassy saw his son. Ellis 110 dated the taking of Cersobleptes' son hostage to 351 (267 n. 85 with reservations), and Griffith in HM 2.283 to 352. If so, the Athenians in the Chersonese would have informed Athens at the time. By 346 it would have been old stuff, and Aeschines would not have made a point of reporting it in 346. Badian 62 distrusts the Scholiast's comment.

¹⁹ Badian 66 n. 53 commented on the Theopompus fragments but did not relate them to Justin 8.3.10–15.

²⁰ Apros occurs twice as the donor of the silver vessels to Cotys which were found in the Rogozen Treasure.

²¹ In Hammond, N. G. L. and Scullard, H. H. (edd.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary (Oxford, 1970), 1059.Google Scholar

²² The distinction between the contemporary historians – Theopompus and Ephorus – and the orators is important. The historians aimed to give the correct sequence. Demosthenes and Aeschines aimed to deceive their audience, each giving his own preferred sequence.

²³ Pharsalus, situated at a main cross-roads and having a superb, very large acropolis, seems to have displaced Larissa as the leading state in the Thessalian League at this time. See Westlake 186f.

²⁴ Griffith in HM 2.223 n. 3 argued that the expression τυ δ πόλεωυ τυ περ τυ τπου κεῖυου referred not to Thessaly of t he previous sentence (Θετταλοὺς μυ) but to ‘cities near Macedonia’, a most vague definition. I do not find his view acceptable.

²⁵ It is probable that Gomphi was taken over at this time and received Macedonian settlers, the town being renamed ‘Philippi’ (Steph. Byz. s.v.). It lay on the western fringe of the plain at a point from which a route leads through the Pindus range to Ambracia (see Hammond, Epirus, 256 and 284).

²⁶ For these fortified places see Schaefer 2.247, Markle, Peace 50f., Ellis 104 a nd 265 n. 61, Badian 63f., and Wirth 84. One of them, Ergisce, was named as donor of three silver vessels to Cotys and of one to Cersobleptes in the Rogozen Treasure. For a discussion of the Treasure see Mihailov, G. in Linguistique Balkanique 30 (1987), 5–19.Google Scholar

²⁷ In 341 Demosthenes changed his timing to after the conclusion of the peace in order to accuse Philip of treachery (9.15); see P-C 266f. In the passages cited in the text the insistence of Demosthenes leads one to suspect that he wanted to conceal the fact that many of Philip's actions in eastern Thrace had preceded the taking of the oaths by Athens and her Allies, which happened a few days after 19th Elaphebolion (D. 19.150–6). The truth of the matter can be deduced from Aeschines 2.90–2, because Aeschines cited official documents. Cersobleptes finally ‘lost his kingdom’ in the course of Elaphebolion (2.92). This loss was reported to the Assembly at Athens on a day when Demosthenes was presiding, namely on the 25th of Elaphebolion, on the strength of a letter from Chares which had reached Athens on the previous day, the 24th (2.90, the latter date referring not to the loss, as Schaefer 2.246, Beloch, GG² 3.2.282, and Markle, Peace 44 and 135f., supposed, but to the arrival of the letter). We do not know how long it took for the news of the loss to reach Chares and for Chares' letter from the Chersonese to reach Athens, but we may hazard as a guess some ten days. The loss, then, culminating in Philip's capture of the Sacred Mountain (2.90), occurred about 14 Elaphebolion, four days before the meeting of the Assembly on 18 Elaphebolion which discussed terms of peace. The Scholiast to D. 19.162 gave the defence made by Philip, that he had taken ‘them’ (presumably the forts) ‘before the oaths’ – that is before the oaths were taken by Athens and her Allies, soon after 19th Elaphebolion (some on 25th Elaphebolion according to Aeschin. 3.73); for Philip was replying to a protest delivered by Eucleides after that date. Ellis 110 and 265 n. 61 put the capture of the forts after 23rd Elaphebolion; P-C 267 had Philip capture the Sacred Mountain ‘on the day before the Athenians themselves took the oath’; Badian 66 n. 63 was critical of Ellis' interpretation. The Sacred Mountain, being ‘the acropolis of the territory’ (Str. 7 fr. 55), was presumably Cersobleptes' last stronghold in 346. Wirth 84f. held that the Macedonian siege of this fort began ‘probably in 347’.

²⁸ So too P-C 179 and Schaefer 1.447 n. 2 without referring to Just. 8.3.14–15.

²⁹ The quotations are from Buckler 57 and 135 n. 42.

³⁰ Cawkwell 108.