hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
43 BC 170 170 Browse Search
44 BC 146 146 Browse Search
49 BC 140 140 Browse Search
45 BC 124 124 Browse Search
54 BC 121 121 Browse Search
46 BC 119 119 Browse Search
63 BC 109 109 Browse Search
48 BC 106 106 Browse Search
69 AD 95 95 Browse Search
59 BC 90 90 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith). Search the whole document.

Found 6 total hits in 5 results.

iv. p. 445; Mitford, ch. 25. sec. 7, ch. 27. sec. 2. Our notices of the rest of the life of Antalcidas are scattered and doubtful. From a passing allusion in the speech of Callistratus the Athenian (Hell. 6.3. 12), we learn that he was then (B. C. 371) absent on another mission to Persia. Might this have been with a view to the negotiation of peace in Greece (see Hell. 6.3), and likewise have been connected with some alarm at the probable interest of Timotheus, son of Conon, at the Persian ctalcidas was one of the ephors, and that, fearing the capture of Sparta, he conveyed his children for safety to Cythera. The same author informs us (Artax. p. 1022d.), that Antalcidas was sent to Persia for supplies after the defeat at Leuctra, B. C. 371, and was coldly and superciliously received by the king. If, considering the general looseness of statement which pervades this portion of Plutarch, it were allowable to set the date of this mission after the invasion of 369, we might possibly
umos in the fourteenth year of the Peloponnesian war. At one of the most critical periods for Sparta, when, in addition to a strong confederacy against her of Grecian states assisted by Persian money, the successes of Pharnabazus and Conon and the restoration of the long walls of Athens appeared to threaten the re-establishment of Athenian dominion, Antalcidas was selected as ambassador to Tiribazus, satrap of western Asia, to negotiate through him a peace for Sparta with the Persian king, B. C. 393. (Hell. 4.8.12.) Such a measure would of course deprive Athens and the hostile league of their chief resources, and, under the pretext of general peace and independence, might leave Sparta at liberty to consolidate her precarious supremacy among the Greeks of Europe. The Athenians, alarmed at this step, also despatched an embassy, with Conon at its head, to counteract the efforts of Antalcidas, and deputies for the same purpose accompanied them from Thebes, Argos, and Corinth. In consequen
2), we learn that he was then (B. C. 371) absent on another mission to Persia. Might this have been with a view to the negotiation of peace in Greece (see Hell. 6.3), and likewise have been connected with some alarm at the probable interest of Timotheus, son of Conon, at the Persian court? (See Diod. 15.50; Dem. c. Timoth. p. 1191; Thirlwall, vol. v. p. 63.) Plutarch again (Ages. p. 613e.) mentions, as a statement of some persons, that at the time of the invasion of Laconia by Epaminondas, B. C. 369. Antalcidas was one of the ephors, and that, fearing the capture of Sparta, he conveyed his children for safety to Cythera. The same author informs us (Artax. p. 1022d.), that Antalcidas was sent to Persia for supplies after the defeat at Leuctra, B. C. 371, and was coldly and superciliously received by the king. If, considering the general looseness of statement which pervades this portion of Plutarch, it were allowable to set the date of this mission after the invasion of 369, we might p
dent, except Lemnos and Imbros and Scyros; and that these, as of old, should belong to the Athenians. But whichever party receives not this peace, against them will I war, with such as accede to these terms, both by land and by sea, both with ships and with money." (Hell. 5.1.31.) To these terms all the parties concerned readily acceded, if we except a brief and ineffectual delay on the part of Thebes and the united government of Argos and Corinth (Hell. 5.1.32-34); and thus was concluded, B. C. 387, the famous peace of Antalcidas, so called as being the fruit of his masterly diplomacy. That the peace effectually provided for the interests of Sparta, is beyond a doubt (Hell. 5.1.36); that it was cordially cherished by most of the other Grecian states as a sort of bulwark and charter of freedom, is no less certain. (Hell. 6.3. ยงยง 9, 12,18, 6.5.2; Paus. 9.1.) On the subject of the peace, see Thirlwall, Gr. Hist. vol. iv. p. 445; Mitford, ch. 25. sec. 7, ch. 27. sec. 2. Our notices of
ney for a navy, to harass the Athenians and their allies, and drive them into wishing for the peace. Moreover, he seized Conon, on the pretext that he had unduly used the king's forces for the extension of Athenian dominion, and threw him into prison. [CONON.] Tiribazus was detained at court by the king, to whom he had gone to give a report of his measures, and was superseded for a time in his satrapy by Struthas, a warm friend of Athens. The war therefore continued for some years; but in B. C. 388 the state of affairs appeared to give promise of success if a fresh negotiation with Persia were attempted. Tiribazus had returned to his former government, Pharnabazus, the opponent of Spartan interests, had gone up to the capital to marry Apama, the king's daughter, and had entrusted his government to Ariobarzanes, with whom Antalcidas had a connexion of hospitality (ce/nos e)k palaiou=). Under these circumstances, Antalcidas was once more sent to Asia both as commander of the fleet (nau