This is the new Livius website. We are currently converting the old website, but this will take some time yet. Please report any errors.

Aigospotamoi (1)

Q866862

Aigospotamoi: the final battle of the Peloponnesian War (431-404). In September 405, the Athenians were decisively defeated by the Spartans and lost their navy. As a result, the siege and fall of Athens became inevitable.

The Battle of Aigospotamoi (405 BCE)

Fifth-century hoplite. Koninklijke musea voor kunst en geschiedenis, Brussels (Belgium)
Fifth-century hoplite. Koninklijke musea voor kunst en geschiedenis, Brussels (Belgium)
The battle of Aigospotamoi, or -to use its Latin name- Aegospotami, was the last great confrontation between Athens and her allies on the one hand, and Sparta and her allies on the other hand.note Unfortunately, our two principal sources, Xenophon and Diodorus of Sicily, appear to contradict each other, and the aim of this article is therefore to present a coherent reconstruction of what really happened.

Besides the two primary sources, Xenophon's Hellenica 2.1.17-32 and Diodorus' Library, 13.104.8-106.8, several other sources refer to Aigospotamoi. Among them are: Plutarch (Life of Lysander, 10-11) Frontinus, (Stratagems, 2.1.18), Polyaenus (Stratagems, 1.45.2), and Pausanias (Description of Greece, 9.32.9). These authors are assumed to be based on Xenophon. Plutarch (Life of Alcibiades, 36-37) and Nepos (Alcibiades, 8) also follow Xenophon's story, but they also contain details that remind one of Diodorus. Although they appear to be secondary, these descriptions are still useful for verifying certain physical aspects like the location of the battlefield.

Because modern authors have chosen to follow either Xenophon or Diodorus, the two different interpretations of the battle of Aigospotamoi have continued to coexist.note When occasionally both Xenophon and Diodorus are quoted, there is almost never an attempt to reconcile the two.

Traditionally, Xenophon's version of Aigospotamoi is considered to be the more complete of the two. His pre-eminence can be ascribed, for one part, to his apparently objective writing. However, this started to change in the seventies. Studies of the orations by Lysias and the Oxyrhynchus Hellenica suggested historians that Diodorus' description is not without merit. Nowadays this revisionist movement, led by Ehrhardt, is the dominant one, although the matter is by no means settled.

I have divided my paper into four parts.