The Fall of the Athenian Empire-(A New History of the Peloponnesian War) Donald Kagan - (1987)

30 THE FALL OF THE ATHENIAN EMPIRE
sib le for the change in Persian policy. 22 But apart from the assertion
of Andocides, there is no evidence for the date of Athens' alliance with
Amorges. Some scholars have tried to use an inscription that seems
to place an Athenian general in Ephesus in March of 414 as evidence
for Athens' support of the revolt of Amorges at that time. 23 They
suggest that the general was there in connection with the alliance with
Amorges "to prevent Tissaphernes collecting tribute," or "presumably
operating in support of Pissuthnes and Amorges," or on the assumption
that "Athenian support for Amorges would be a reason for a general
being there in 414- " 24 But this is mere fantasy. There are many reasons
why an Athenian general might have been in Ephesus in the spring
of 414, and support of a rebellion of Amorges is one of the least likely.
Later events would show that the loyalty of Ephesus was very much
in question, so a general might have been needed to keep an eye on
the Ephesians. Another possibility might be the desire on the part of
the Athenians to collect arrears in tribute by a show of force, as they
had done elsewhere. On the other hand, Ephesus was by no means
the likeliest place for an Athenian force sent to help Amorges, for
Miletus was closer to his base at Iasus. 25 The inscription is simply of
no use in dating Athens' alliance with Amorges.
We are left with the claim of Andocides, and that orator "is at all
times a bad witness. " 26 In his speech On the Peace, Andocides supports
his thesis with three examples showing Athens supporting weak allies
in preference to strong ones. The first is the alliance with Amorges.
The second alleges an offer from the Syracusans, before the Sicilian
expedition, of an alliance with Athens. The third is Athens' decision
to launch an attack on Laconia in 414 at the behest of its Argive allies. 27
The last of these examples is factually correct, although incomplete
and tendentious. The second is certainly an invention without factual
22
0pinions are cited by H. D. Westlake, Phoenix XXXI (1977), 319, n. 2.
''The inscription (IG 1 2 = CHI, 77, !.79) reads CTTp