hide Matching Documents

The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.

Document Max. Freq Min. Freq
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith) 16 16 Browse Search
Diodorus Siculus, Library 2 2 Browse Search
Titus Livius (Livy), History of Rome, books 1-10 (ed. Rev. Canon Roberts) 1 1 Browse Search
Titus Livius (Livy), Ab Urbe Condita, books 8-10 (ed. Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D.) 1 1 Browse Search
View all matching documents...

Your search returned 20 results in 17 document sections:

1 2
Diodorus Siculus, Library, Book XVI, Chapter 72 (search)
342/1 B.C.When Sosigenes was archon at Athens, the Romans elected as consuls Marcus Valerius and Marcus Gnaeus Publius.Sosigenes was archon at Athens from July 342 to June 341 B.C. The consuls of 346 B.C. were M. Valerius Corvus and C. Poetelius Libo Visolus (Broughton, 1.131). In this year, Arymbas king of the Molossians died after a rule of ten years,His accession is not mentioned by Diodorus under the year 351/0 B.C. Alexander's accession is otherwise known from Dem. 7.32. leaving a son Aeacides, Pyrrhus's father, but Alexander the brother of Olympias succeeded to the throne with the backing of Philip of Macedon. In Sicily, Timoleon made an expedition against Leontini, for this was the city where Hicetas had taken refuge with a substantial army.Continued from chap. 70. Cp. Plut. Timoleon 24.1-2. He launched an assault on the part called Neapolis, but since the soldiers in the city were numerous and had an advantage in fight
Diodorus Siculus, Library, Book XVI, Chapter 84 (search)
338/7 B.C.When Charondes was archon at Athens, Lucius Aemilius and Gaius Plautius succeeded to the consulship.Chaerondes was archon at Athens from July 338 to June 337 B.C. The consuls of 341 B.C. were L. Aemilius Mamercinus Privernas and C. Plautius Venno (Broughton, 1.134). In this year, Philip the king, having won most of the Greeks over to friendship with him, was ambitious to gain the uncontested leadership of Greece by terrifying the Athenians into submission.Continued from chap. 77.3. These events are briefly noted in Justin 9.3. Therefore he suddenly seized the city of Elateia, concentrated his forces there and adopted a policy of war with Athens. He expected to have no trouble in defeating them, since their reliance on the existing peace treatyThis is consistent with Diodorus's statement in chap. 77.3, that peace was concluded on the abandonment of the siege of Byzantium. Actually, the situation seems to have been ju
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 8 (ed. Rev. Canon Roberts), chapter 3 (search)
re ordered to resign before the expire of their year of office in order that the new consuls might be elected at an earlier date in view of such a formidable war. There were religious difficulties in the way of the elections being held by those whose tenure of office had been curtailed, and so an interregnum commenced. There were two interreges, M. Valerius and M. Fabius. The latter elected T. Manlius Torquatus (for the third time) and P. Decius Mus as consuls. It was in this year (341 B.C.), it appears, that Alexander, King of Epirus, landed in Italy, and there is no doubt that had he been fairly successful at first that war would have extended to Rome. This, too, was about the time of the achievements of Alexander the Great, the son of this man's sister, who, after proving himself invincible in another region of the globe, was cut off, whilst a young man, by disease. Although there could be no doubt as to the revolt of their allies —the Latin league —still, as
Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 8 (ed. Benjamin Oliver Foster, Ph.D.), chapter 39 (search)
ot; some were slaughtered in the midst, others were scattered abroad in flight. The foot —soldiers surrounded those who resisted and put them to the sword; the cavalry made havoc of the fugitives, amongst whom perished their general himself. this defeat, after all that had gone before, so broke the spirit of the Samnites, that in all their councils they began to murmur that it was no wonder if they met with no success in an impious war, undertaken in violation of a treaty,That of 341 B.C. see chap. ii § 4, and (for the violation) chap. xxii. § 7 and chap. xxiii. § 1. for the gods had even more right than men to be incensed with them. they would have to pay a heavy price to expiate this war and atone for it; the only question was, should they offer atonement with the blood of the guilty few or with that of the innocent multitude? some ventured at this juncture to nameB.C. 333 those who had been responsible for the war. one name in particular could be distinguished
s, de Generatione et Corruptione), in two books The two books on Production and Destruction, develop the general laws of production and destruction, which are indicated more definitely in the process of formation which goes on in inorganic nature, or in meteorological phaenomena. The consideration of this forms the contents of the 4. on Meteorology (metewrologika/, de Meteoris), in four books. This work, which is distinguished by the clearness and ease of its style, was composed after B. C. 341, and before the time when an acquaintance with India was obtained by Alexander's expedition. (St. Croix, Examen critique des Hist. d'Alex. p. 703; Ideler, Meteorologia vet. Graecor. et Rom., Berol. 1832.) It contains the groundwork of a physical geography. Editions: It has been edited by Ideler, Lips. 1834, 2 vols., with a profuse commentary. This work is commonly followed in the editions by the treatise On the Universe. 5. On the Universe (peri\ ko/smou, de Mundo) This is a letter to
ding out great promises (apparently never realized) of assistance in men and money from Achaia, Megara, and Euboea. This seems to have been in B. C. 343, at the time of Philip's projected attempt on Ambracia. Aeschines of course ascribes his rival's support of Callias to corruption; but Demosthenes may have thought that Euboea, united under a strong government, might serve as an effectual barrier to Philip's ambition. (Aesch. c. Ctes. § 89, &c.; Dem. Philipp. 3.85; Thirlwall's Greece, vol. vi. p. 19.) In B. C. 341, the defeat by Phocion of the Macedonian party in Eretria and Oreus under Cleitarchus and Philistides gave the supremacy in the island to Callias. (Dem. de Cor. §§ 86, 99, &c.; Philipp. 3. §§ 23, 75, 79; Diod. 16.74; Plut. Dem. 17.) Callias seems to have been still living in B. C. 330, the date of the orations on "the Crown." See Aesch. c. Ctes. §§ 85, 87, who mentions a proposal of Demosthenes to confer on him and his brother Taurosthenes the honour of Athenian citiz
hares stating the hopeless condition of the affairs of Cersobleptes. (Dem. de Fals. Leg. pp. 390, 391, 447; Aesch. de Fals. Leg. pp. 29, 37, 40.) After this we lose sight of Chares for several years, during which he probably resided at Sigetiu, which, according to Theopompus (apud Athen. xii . p. 532,) was with him a favourite residence, as supplying more opportunity for the indulgence of his profligate propensities than he could find at Athens. But in a speech of Demosthenes delivered in B. C. 341 (de Chers. p. 97) he is spoken of as possessing much influence at that time in the Atlenian councils ; and we may consider him therefore to have been one of those who authorized and defended the proceedings of Diopeithes against Philip in Thrace. In B. C. 340 he was appointed to the command of the force which was sent to aid Byzantium against Philip; but his character excited the suspicions of the Byzantians, and they refused to receive him. Against the enemy he effected nothing: his only
lent from Cleitarchus was part of the bribe which he alleges that Demosthenes received for procuring the decree in question. Cleitarchus appears therefore to have come into the above project of Demosthenes and Callias, to whom he would naturally be opposed; but he thought it perhaps a point gained if he could get rid of the remnant of Atheian influence in Eretria. For the possible motives of Demosthenes, see p. 568a. The plan, however, seems to have fallen to the ground, and Demosthenes in B. C. 341 carried a decree for an expedition to Euboea with the view of putting down the Macedonian interest in the island. On this, Cleitarchus and Philistides, the tyrant of Oreus, sent ambassadors to Athens to prevent, if possible, the threatened invasion; and Aeschines, at whose house the envoys were entertained, appears to have supported their cause in the assembly. But the decree was carried into effect, and the command of the armament was given to Phocion, by whom Cleitarchus and Philistides
orts his countrymen to unite and resist the treacherous aggressor. Soon after this, the tyrants whom Philip had established in Euboea were expelled through the influence and assistance of Demosthenes (Dem. de Coron. p. 254); but it was not till B. C. 341, when Philip laid siege to Perinthus and attacked Byzantium, that the long-sup-pressed indignation of the Athenians burst forth. The peace with Philip was now declared violated (B. C. 340); a fleet was sent to relieve Byzantium (Plut. Phoc. 14)lippic, delivered in B. C. 342. See Vömel, Demosthenis Philip. III. habitant esse ante Chersonesiticam, Frankf. 1837; L. Spengel, Ueber die dritte Philip. Rede des Dem., Munich, 1839. 10. The fourth Philippic The fourth Philippic, belongs to B. C. 341, but is thought by nearly all critics to be spurious. See Becker, Philip. Reden, ii. p. 491, &c.; W. H. Veersteg, Orat. Philip. IV. Demosth. aljudicatur, Groningae, 1818. 11. *Pro\s th\n *)Epistolh\n th\n *Fili/ppou *Pro\s th\n *)Epistolh\n
ent in the interior of the same country on his expedition against Teres and Cersobleptes. Philip sent a letter of remonstrance to Athens, and Diopeithes was arraigned by the Macedonian party, not only for his aggression on the king's territory, but also for the means (unjust doubtless and violent, but common enough with all Athenian generals at the time,) to which he resorted for the support of his mercenaries. He was defended by Demosthenes in the oration, still extant, on the Chersonese, B. C. 341, and the defence was successful, for he was permitted to retain his command. After this, and probably during the war of Philip with Byzantium (B. C. 340), Diopeithes again invaded the Macedonian territory in Thrace, took the towns of Crobyle and Tiristasis and enslaved the inhabitants, and when an ambassador, named Amphilochus, came to negotiate for the release of the prisoners, he seized his person in defiance of all international law, and compelled him to pay nine talents for his ransom.
1 2