1 My thanks are due to S. Rendall for his help in the English version of this text and to J. Ma for lively electronic discussions.

2 Older literature in van Gelder H., Geschichte der alten Rhodier, The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1900, p. 104-106; more recent one by Berthold R. M., Rhodes in the Hellenistic Age, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1984, p. 66-80; Garlan Y., “Le siège de Rhodes”, L’histoire, 25, 1980, p. 48-57; Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, Handel und Piraterie. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des hellenistischen Rhodos, Berlin,

Akademie Verlag, 2002, 78-84, which offers a good synthetic account of the siege of Rhodes.

3 Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 21-22, mentions the helepolis, recounts various anecdotes about Demetrios, and refers to the latter’s attitude with respect to the painter Protogenes during the siege of Rhodes. Several briefer remarks should also be noted here, for example, Vitruvius 10.16 (on the role of architects and engineers during the siege of Rhodes) and Pliny (7.5). Above all, a Berlin papyrus (P. Berol. 11632) reproduces an original remarkably well-informed about the siege, as is shown by the parallel with Diodorus, 20.93-94. It was edited with an important commentary by Hiller Von Gärtringen F., “Aus der Belagerung von Rhodos 304 v. Chr. Griechischer Papyrus der Kgl. Museen zu Berlin”, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 36, 1918-2, p. 752-762, and republished by Jacoby, FGrHist, 533 F 2 (with commentary IIIb Text, p. 451-452, Noten p. 266). The details provided by this papyrus show that its author’s source was not Diodorus, but that he had a source similar to Diodorus’ : the arrangement of the account is generally the same, only the details vary. For F. Jacoby, neither the author nor the source are necessarily the same ; in any case, according to Jacoby, rather than Zeno of Rhodes, it could be Hieronymus or Agatharchides. Nonetheless, it is difficult to believe that the primary source of the papyrus, like that of Diodorus, could be anything other than Rhodian because it offers so many details that always concern the affairs of the Rhodian camp, and because the point of view is always that of the besieged, not that of the besiegers. See also Wiemer H.-U., Rhodische Traditionen in der hellenistischen Historiographie, Frankfurt am Main, Marthe Clauss, 2001, p. 222-250.

4 Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 85, who nevertheless emphasizes the paradoxical nature of this thesis in relation to what we know about the existence of fortifications on the Rhodian territory during the Hellenistic period and the Knights’later strategy during the period of the Ottoman sieges.

5 For parallels, see the supplies accumulated by the Mytilenians in 427 in relation to their revolt against Athens and a possible siege of their city conducted by the Athenians (Thucydides 3.2.2-3).

6 Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 81-82 (and p. 81-83 for the chronology of the events of the years 306-305) and ID., Rhodische Traditioner, op. cit., p. 231-238, for the motivations of the Rhodians.

7 Diodore 20.82.3-4 : δ’ ἐκεῖνος ὁμήρους ἑκατòν ἤτει τοὺς ἐπιφανεστάτους καὶ τοῖς λιμέσι δέχεσθαι τòν στόλον προσέταττεν, ὑπολαβόντες ἐπιβουλεύειν αὐτόν τῇ πόλει, τὰ πρòς πόλεμον παρεσκευάζοντο.

8 Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 83.

9 .Diodorus 20.82.2.

10 Brockman E., The Two Sieges of Rhodes 1480-1522, London, John Murray, 1969, p. 62-63.

11 Diodorus 20.82.2-3.

12 Diodorus 20.96.1-3 (see Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 83).

13 Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 86, and more generally p. 85-87 and 91 on the chronology of the siege.

14 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.24.

15 Appian, Civil Wars, 4.72-73, on the disorganization of the Rhodian forces and the absence of sufficient preparations.

16 Appian, Civil Wars, 4.71-72.

17 Brockman E., op. cit., p. 65 and 119.

18 Filimonos-Tsopotou M., H ελληνιστική οχύρωση της Ρόδου, Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού. Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων και Απαλλοτριώσεων, Δημοσιεύματα του Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου 86, Athens, 2004, p. 34-45, with map p. 35 ; Pimouguet-Pédarros I., “Le système de défense rhodien face à Démétrios Poliorcète”, in Mazoyer M. and Casabonne O., Studia Anatolica et varia. Mélanges offerts au professeur René Lebrun, II, Paris - Louvain-la-Neuve, Kubaba - L’Harmattan, 2004, p. 212-239.

19 Diodorus 20.84.5 and 85.4.

20 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.24.

21 Diodorus 20.84.4-5.

22 kantzia C., ““Ένα ασυνήθιστο πολεμικό ανάθημα στο ιερό της οδού Διαγοριδών στη Ρόδο”, Ρόδος 2400 χρόνια I. Η πόλη της Ρόδου από την ίδρυση της μέχρι την κατάληψη από τους Τούρκους (1523), Athens, Ταμείο Αρχαιολογικών Πόρων, p. 75-82, with Chaniotis A., War in the Hellenistic World. A Social and Cultural History, Malden, Ma-London, 2005, p. 146-147. For another group of stone balls found in the town of Rhodes that might be connected to the siege of Demetrios, see Laurenzi L., “Projettili dell’artiglieria antica scoperti a Rodi”, MemFERT, 2, 1938, p. 33-36, pl. XXVII-XXXI.

23 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.24.

24 Brockman E., op. cit., p. 65 and 119.

25 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.24.

26 Papachristodoulou C. I., Ιστορία της Ρόδου. Από τους προϊστορικούς χρόνους έως την ενσωμάτωση της Δωδεκανήσου (1948), Στέγη Γραμμάτων και Τεχνών Δωδεκανήσου, Athens, 1972, p. 295.

27 Diodorus 20.84.2-4.

28 Diodorus 20.100.1.

29 Garlan Y., Les esclaves en Grèce ancienne, Paris, F. Maspéro, 1982, p. 190, stresses however the exceptional character of this citizenship given to slaves. K. W. Welwei, Unfreie im antiken Kriegsdienst, II, Wiesbaden, Steiner, 1977, on Rhodes p. 50-51.

30 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.24, to be completed with SEG, 45, no. 1825 (help of the Lykian koinon in the war against the Pontic king mentioned in a dedication from Patara, with comm. SEG, 55, 2005, no. 1503).

31 See Baker P., Cos et Calymna, 205-200 av. J.-C. : esprit civique et défense nationale, Québec, Éd. du Sphinx, 1992, decree for Theukles (Syll.³, 569), p. 35-47, text p. 35-36, no. 3, l. 21-22 and comm. p. 44.

32 On this point, see below.

33 Diodorus 20.83.2 and 98.8.

34 Aeneas the Tactictian books XI (as a whole ; the danger of conspiracies) and XIV (as a whole ; the necessity of concord).

35 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.22.

36 Syll.³, 742.

37 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.26.

38 Appian, Civil Wars, 4.73.

39 Andrea d’Amaral, Master of Castilla, had not been elected Grand Master. His mortal hatred for Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, the order’s last Grand Master, had led him to encourage the sultan to launch his expedition. When Suleiman, considering the enormous losses he had suffered, was ready to lift the siege, Amaral told him that the besieged were totally exhausted ; the sultan thus persisted and Rhodes had to surrender (Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 310 and 318-319). E. Brockman (op. cit., p. 139-147) is skeptical about chancellor d’Amaral’s treachery, but acknowledges that his policy was actively opposed to that of the Grand Master and that its aim was the surrender of Rhodes, which ultimately amounts to acknowledging the facts.

40 . Golden Nikai : Bresson A., “Relire la Chronique de Lindos”, Topoi, 14, 2006, p. 527-551, part. p. 545-546 ; coinages corresponding to the period of the siege and its consequences : Ashton R., “The Coinage of Rhodes 408-c. 190 BC”, in Meadows A. and Shipton K., Money and its Uses in the Ancient Greek World, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 79-116, part. p. 93.

41

42 Diodorus 20.84.4 : ὁμονοοῦντος γὰρ τοῦ πλήθους.

43 Diodorus 20.84.3 for all these measures.

44 Pouilloux J., Recherches sur l’histoire et les cultes de Thasos, I, Paris, de Boccard, 1954, p. 371, no. 141 (Nouveau Choix, p. 105-109, no. 19).

45 Nouveau Choix, p. 109.

46 For Athens, see the references collected in Nouveau Choix, p. 109 : Thucydides 2.45-46 (last part of the funeral oration for those who died during the first year of the war, in which Pericles urges widows to observe the strictest modesty) ; Isocrates, On Peace, 82 ; Aeschines, Against Ctesiphon, 154 ; Plato, Menexenus, 248e sq. ; Aristotle, Politics, 1268a and Constitution of Athens, 24.3 and 58.1.

47 Diodorus 20.84.4.

48 Diodorus 20.94.3-5 (also P. Berol., 11632, l. 12-48, for the Athenagoras episode).

49 Appian, Civil Wars, 4.66 and 73.

50 Diodorus 20.84.2.

51 Diodorus, 20.84.6. On this procedure, Bielman A., Retour à la liberté. Libération et sauvetage de prisonniers en Grèce ancienne. Recueil d’inscriptions honorant des sauveteurs et analyse critique (Études épigraphiques 1), Lausanne-Athens, Université de Lausanne-École Française d’Athènes, 1994, p. 300-301, with 260 and 284, n. 61.

52 P. Berol., 11632, l. 1-12. The conditions under which these technicians were captured are explained by Diodorus 20.93.5, but he gives no details regarding the following events and the Rhodian refusal to exchange them.

53 Here it suffices to refer to Fraser P. M., The Rhodian Peraea and Islands, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1954, p. 94-98 and 138-154.

54 Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 279 (Halikarnassos) ; Brockman E., op. cit., p. 154.

55 On the absolute necessity of protecting the people and evacuating them in the context of wars in ancient Greece, see generally Hanson V. D., Warfare and Agriculture², Berkeley, University of California Press, 1998, p. 103-121.

56 On such agreements, Müller H., “Φυγῆς ἕvεkεv”, Chiron, 5, 1975, p. 129-156.

57 On the Periclean strategy, Garlan Y., Recherches de poliorcétique grecque, BEFAR 243, Athens, École française d’Athènes, 1974, p. 44-65.

58 Garlan Y., op. cit., p. 66-86 ; Ober J., Fortress Attica, Leyde, Brill, 1985, p. 51-66.

59 Ober J., op. cit., p. 81-82, with detailed references.

60 Xenophon, Poroi, 4.43-44. See Gauthier P., Un commentaire historique des Poroi de Xénophon, Geneva-Paris, Droz, 1976, p. 178-182.

61 Lycurgus, Against Leokrates, 16, is explicit on this point.

62 Demosthenes 18.37-38. Hanson V. D., op. cit., p. 113, thinks that we cannot gauge the authenticity of this decree. But it suffices to note that its terms correspond exactly to Lycurgus’indications.

63 ILindos, 2D, l. 5-8, which mentions the ὀχυpώματα of the Lindian territory.

64 See Jouanna J., “Collaboration ou résistance au barbare : Artémise d’Halicarnasse et Cadmos chez Hérodote et Hippocrate”, Ktema, 9, 1984, p. 15-26, p. 18 on this point.

65 Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 295.

66 Diodorus 20.83.3.

67 Diodorus 20.83.4. Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 84-85 ; Brockman E., op. cit., p. 65-66 and 125-126 on the period of the two Ottoman sieges. However, M. Filimonos-tsopotou (op. cit., p. 43-45) offers persuasive arguments showing that for logistical reasons, this port must have been on the east coast, at the site of the future “southern port” (see map p. 35).

68 On Ialysos, Papachristodoulou I. C., Oι αpχαίoί poδιαkoί δήμoι. I. H. Iαλvσία, Athens, Bιβλιoθήkη της εv Aεήvαις Apχαιoλoγιkής Eταιpείας, 1989, p. 83-95.

69 IG, XII. 1, 677 (SGDI, 4110 ; see Papachristodoulou I. C., Δήμoι, op. cit., p. 152), l. 15-18 on the difference between the lower town and its acropolis.

70 Papachristodoulou I. C., Δήμoι, op. cit., p. 83 (Mycenaean period) ; Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 394 (medieval period).

71 Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 260-261 and 394.

72 Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 394.

73 Diodorus 20.83.4 : έδεvδpoτμησε δὲ kαὶ τὴv πὴv πλησίov χώpαv kαὶ kαθεῖλε τὰς ἐπαύλεις, ἐξὧv ὠχύpωσε τὴv στpατoπεδείαv πεpιλαβὼv τpιπλῷ χάpαkι kαὶ σταvpώμασι πukvoῖς kαὶ μεγάλoις, ὣστε τὴv τῶv πoλεμίωv βλάβηv γίvεσθαι τῶv ἰδίωv ἀσφάλειαv..

74 Diodorus 20.82.4-5. On the pirates, see also below and n. 120-122.

75 Diodorus 20.82.4 : σὺv ἱππεῦσι.

76 Diodorus 20.84.6 : πλoῖα ; oὐk ὀλίγα δὲ kαὶ πpὸς τὸv αἰγιαλὸv kατασπῶσαι σuvέkαuσαv. See also below and n. 110 and 119.

77 Bresson A., “Richesse et pouvoir à Lindos (époque hellénistique)”, in Dietz S. and Papachristodoulou I. C. (ed.), Archaeology in the Dodecanese, Copenhagen, National Museum of Denmark, 1988, p. 145-154.

78 On the fortifications of the lower town of Lindos, Papachristodoulou I. C., “Recent Investigations and Activities carried out by the Archaeological Service of the Dodecanese”, Archaeology in the Dodecanese, op. cit., p. 201-209, part. p. 208 (segment of the late Archaic - early Classical fortification wall).

79 ILindos, 2D, l. 94-119 ; Wiemer H., Krieg, op. cit., p. 85, n. 140, mentions the episode but ranks it among the imaginary accounts and does not make use of it.

80 C. Blinkenberg, ILindos, 2D, l. 97-98 : ἒτι / διατpίβω[v] ἐv Δίvδωι.

81 C. Blinkenberg, ILindos, I, p. 187.

82 Luttrell A. and Von Falkenhausen V., “Lindos and the Defence of Rhodes, 1306-1522”, in Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, 22-23, 1985/86, p. 317-332.

83 Kamiros “may have remained unfortified until the Hellenistic period”, with reference to Tit. Cam. 110, l. 19 sq. (Nielsen T. H. and Gabrielsen V., “Rhodes”, in Hansen M. H. and Nielsen T. H. (ed.), An Inventory of Archaic and Classical Poleis, Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 1196-1210, part. p. 1201). Reference to this point of view in Hornblower S., A Commentary on Thucydides, III, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 881.

84 Thucydides 8.44.2, with commentary by S. Hornblower, ibid.

85 Thucydides 3.33.2 (Ionia in general), 8.31.3 (Klazomenai), 8.41.2 (Kos Meropis).

86 Ancient fortresses on the territory of Ialysos in Papachristodoulou I. C.,Δήμoι, op. cit.: Erimokastro, p. 120-124, with pl. 12-14 (hardly a dozen kilometers from Rhodes on the east coast of the island, the fort was nonetheless certainly evacuated in 305-304); small forts in the region of Archangelos, p. 133 and 135-137, with pl. 17).

87 For the other parts of Rhodian territory on the island, Inglieri R. U., Carta archeologica dell’isola di Rodi, Florence, LeMonnier, 1936 (FN: Foglio nord, FS: Foglio sud): Kamiran territory – FN no. 132 (cat. p. 47): Chitala, small fortress; FN no. 158 (cat. p. 51): S. Focà (Haghios Phokas, powerful fortress of pre-Hellenistic times but permanently occupied later, sector of Kymisala); FS no. 17 (cat. p. 56): Patoclia; Lindian territory – FS no. 59 (cat. p. 65): Stafilia; two other fortified sites of the southern Lindian chōra seems to have been mainly or only of Archaic times: FS no. 96 (cat. p. 70): Iemartà (coastal fortress, Archaic times) FS no. 98 (cat. p. 71-72): Vrulià (Vroulia, Archaic times only). For the other islands and the continental territory, see below p. 114-115.

88 Tit. Cam., 110, 19-26, l. 19-21: πεπτωkό/τωv τε τῶv τειχέωv διὰ γεvόμεvov σεισμὸv / ἐπ’ ἰεpέως θεuφάvεuς.

89 Habicht C., “Rhodian Amphora Stamps and Rhodian Eponyms”, Revue des Études Anciennes, 105, 2003, p. 541-578, part, p. 556-557.

90 Justin 30.4.1-3: In Asia quoque eadem die idem motus terrae Rhodum multasque alias civitates gravis ruinarum labe concussit, quasdam solidas absorbuit.

91 IStratonikeia, l. 16-18 : σuvσεισθέ[v]/τωv τῶv τειχέωv ὑπὸ τoῦ/σεισμoῦ.

92 H.-U. Wiemer (Krieg, op. cit., p. 85, n. 143) also rightly emphasizes the existence in Kamiros of epistatai of the peripolion, that is, of local magistrates in charge of the fortifications (but the testimonies are posterior to 198).

93 I am indebted to J. Ma, who is writing a study on these sling-bullets (“Autour des balles de fronde ‘ camiréennes’”, Chiron, 40, 2010, in press) for drawing my attention to the group of sling-bullets from Kamiros. We both independently reached the conclusion that the “Kamiran sling-bullets” could have been used only during operations against the town of Kamiros.

94 Vischer W., “Epigraphische und Archäologische Kleinigkeiten. I. Antike Schleudergeschosse”, Kleine Schriften, II, Leipzig, Hirzel, 1878, p. 259-284, p. 270, no. 59, uninscribed, similar to an example in the Musée de Saint-Germain that came from “the Kamiros plateau”.

95 Maiuri A., NS, p. 249-252 ; Jacopi G., “Esplorazione archeologica di Camiro II. La stipe votiva”, Clara Rhodos, 6-7.1, 1932-1933, p. 278-365, part. p. 361 (illustration) and p. 365 ; Tit. Cam., 192 l-s.

96 LGPN, IIIA : Aetolia, beginning of the third century, 1 occ. ; Messenia, third century, 1 occ. ; IIIB : Delphi, second century 2 occ. ; Thessaly, c. 300 BC, 1 occ. On the name Babyrtas, Masson, O., “Notes d’anthroponymie grecque : quelques noms sans étymologie”, Revue de Philologie, 105, 1979, p. 244-250, part. p. 248-250 ; see also a Thessalian Babyrtadas, apparently third century BC, LGPN, IIIB.

97 It will suffice here to give the statistics by volume : LGPN : I (Crete [Olous], Cyrenaica, without the occurrence of sling-bullets from Rhodes) 2 ; IIIA (western Greece) 15 ; IIIB (central Greece and Thessaly) 15 ; IV (Kallatis) 1.

98 LGPN, I : Knossos, second century, 1 occ. ; Cyrene, fourth century, 2 occ. ; Berenike, first century, 1 ; IIIA : Arkadia, third century, 1 (but with however many Thearidas, Thearis, Thearion in Western Greece).

99 In publishing the sling-bullets in the Froehner collection, M.-C. Hellmann (“Collection Froehner : balles de fronde grecques”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 106, 1982, p. 75-87, part. p. 76-79, no. 1-14) has listed fourteen bullets that are of “Rhodian type” and whose Rhodian provenance is certain (bought in Rhodes) or very probable (bought in Alexandria, a city closely linked with Rhodes in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries through its Greek emigrant community). One of these bullets is uninscribed. As for the bullets bearing a proper name, we find a close correspondence with the sling-bullets from Kamiros : Antidoros, 1, Euboulidas 2, Nikodamos 1, Babyrtas 4, Thearos 1, with in addition one bullet bearing the name Ameinias, a name that is found throughout the Greek world but is particularly well attested among the Rhodian elite, and another with the name of Apollonidas, of which we can say the same for the whole of the Dorian world (for this name, however, see also below, n. 109). One bullet with the name Babyrtas had been published by W. Vischer, op. cit., p. 273, no. 65. The Canellopoulos collection also included a bullet with the name of Babyrtas (Empereur J.-Y., “Collection Paul Canellopoulos [XVII] : Petits objets inscrits”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 105, 1981, p. 537-568, part. p. 557-558, no. 8). Six bullets bearing his name were also found during the excavation of Miletos (Weiß P., “Schleuderbleie und Marktgewichte”, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1997, p. 143-156, p. 146, no. 6, with p. 152).

100 On this hypothesis, see also below, n. 109.

101 Weiß P., art. cit., p. 152. P. Weiß correctly observes that Babyrtas (that is, his troops) must have fought at both Kamiros and Miletos. As for dating, however, his chronology remains vague : second half of the fourth century or third century.

102 See Olynthus, X, p. 418-420 ; Φιλίππov, ibid., p. 431-433, no. 2229-2241 ; Iππovίkov, p. 424-426, no. 2186-2201 (before the excavations in Olynthus, W. Vischer had already made the connection with Philip’s general operating in Euboea mentioned by Demosthenes, 3^rd Philippic [9.58], Vischer, op. cit., p. 263, no. 10 ; another example in the Canellopoulos collection, Empereur J.-Y., art. cit., p. 560, no. 17) ; χαλ - ou Xαλkι (δέωv), p. 419 and 437, no. 2260-2264 ; Oλu (vθίωv), p. 430, no. 220-225.

103 On these questions of writing and chronology in Rhodian inscriptions from the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third century, Bresson, A., “Rhodes, Rome et les pirates tyrrhéniens”, in P. Brun (ed.), Scripta Anatolica. Hommages à Pierre Debord, Études 18, Bordeaux, Ausonius, 2007, p. 145-164.

104 Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 57-58.

105 Diodorus 20.82.5 : πoλλὰ γὰp ἒτη τῆς χώpας τῆς ‘Poδίωv ἀπopθήτov γεγεvημέvης.

106 Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 60-61.

107 Xenophon, Anabasis, 3.3.16-17.

108 Bresson A., “Monétaires rhodiens du II^e siècle a. C. : onomastique et société”, in Bresson A. and Descat R. (ed.), Les cités d’Asie Mineure occidentale au II^e siècle a. C., Études 8, Bordeaux, Ausonius 2001, p. 197-211. For slave onomastics in Rhodes, Bresson A., “Remarques préliminaires sur l’onomastique des esclaves dans la Rhodes antique”, in Moggi M. and Cordiano G. (ed.), Schiavi e dipendenti nell’ambito dell’“oikos” e della “familia”, Atti del XXII Colloquio GIREA Pontignano (Siena) 19-20 novembre 1995, Pisa, ETS, 1997, p. 117-126.

109 Diodorus 20.88.9.

110 See J. Ma’s study (art. cit.) and his conclusions. Concerning the bullet with Apollonidas’name in the Froehner collection (above, n. 98), M.-C. Hellmann has observed : “Plutôt qu’au général de Cassandre [Diodore 19.63.1-2], il faudrait peut-être songer, à cause du nominatif, à un artisan” (with the parallel of the bullet from Kamiros Swkravthı ejpovhse mentioned above). In fact, it is far from certain that Sokrates was a craftsman. The inscription could mean : “Sokrates had (this) made”. On Apollonidas, Cassander’s commander at Argos in 315 and a ruthless general, Piérart M., “Argos, Cléonai et le Koinon des Arcadiens”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, 106, 1982, 119-138, part. p. 134-136. Diodorus does not mention Cassander’s troops being at Rhodes. This is what makes it less likely that leaders like Babyrtas and Euboulidas (whose names are also attested in Thessaly, a region under Cassander’s control) fought on the Rhodian side.

111 Diodorus 20.93.2. See above n. 75 and below n. 119 for the evidence that the ships had been driven onto the coast before being burned and their crews made prisoner. Conversely, while sailing down the Lykian coast, Menedamos took and burned in Patara a ship lying at anchor while its crew was ashore (Diodorus 20.93.2 : πλεὑσας τῆς Δukίας ἐπὶ τὰ ҐIάταpα kαὶ kαταλαβὼv ὁpμoῦσv vαῦv τoῦ πληpώματoς ἐπὶ γῆς ὄvτoς ἐvπὑpισε τὸ σkάφoς). Thus Menedamos did not tow the ship to the coast, because the latter was in the hands of the enemy forces.

112 On Karpathos, Hope Simpson R. and Lazenby J. F., “Notes from the Dodecanese”, Annual of the British School at Athens, 57, 1962, p. 154-175, part. p. 158-165.

113 Diodorus 20.82.4.

114 Diodorus 14.83.4.

115 For recent work on Loryma, Held W., “Platz, Heiligtum und politische Institutionen in Loryma und der Karischen Chersones”, in Hoepfner W. and Lehmann L. (ed.), Die griechische Agora, Symposion Berlin 2003, Mainz, Philipp von Zabern, 2006, p. 41-52, on the fortified town of Loryma, which was occupied starting in the sixth century BC. ; id., “Die Karer und die rhodische Peraia”, in Rumscheid F. (ed.), Die Karer und die Anderen, Kolloquium Berlin 2005, Bonn, Habelt, 2009, p. 121-134, who assumes that the Chersonese became Rhodians only c. 300 BC, a date that is however certainly too late.

116 Appian, Civil Wars, 4.72.

117 Papachristodoulou C. I., op. cit., p. 295 and 313-314.

118 Pimouguet-Pédarros I., “Les fortifications de la Pérée rhodienne”, Revue des Études anciennes, 96, 1994, p. 243-272 ; Ead., Archéologie de la défense. Histoire des fortifications antiques de la Carie (époques classique et hellénistique), Paris, 2000, p. 380-405.

119 Diodorus 20.97.5-6.

120 On Amyntas’expedition see below n. 132 and on the issue of burning the ships above n. 75 and 119.

121 Diodorus 5.63.1 : τoὑς τε λησττὺς τoὺς πάvια διαpπάςov ιας μόvov τoῦτo ἀφεῖvαι παvτελῶς ἂσuλov kαίπεp ὰτείχιστov ὑπάpχov kαὶ ὰkίvδuvov ἔχov τἠv ἀpπαγἠv. Indeed the sanctuary seems to have been unfortified : see Cook J. M. and Plommer W. H., The Sanctuary of Hemithea at Kastabos, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1966, p. 15-18 (who do not mention any trace of fortification). On the pirates, see also above n. 73.

122 Potidaion : H.-U. Wiemer, Krieg, op. cit., p. 343-344 ; Kos : Buraselis K., Kos between Hellenism and Rome : Studies on the Political, Institutional, and Social History of Kos from ca. the Middle Second Century B. C. until Late Antiquity, Philadelphia, American Philosophical Society, 2000, p. 11-13.

123 Diodorus 20.82.4 : kαὶ τoῖς σuμμαχoῦσι πειpαταῖς.

124 On the active strategy of defense in time of war in general (not specifically in the case of the siege of the capital city), Hanson, V. D., op. cit., p. 67-107, with the complementary comments of Y. Garlan in his review of Hanson’s work, Gnomon, 57, 1985, p. 474-475 on the first edition of 1983.

125 Thucydides 6.45 : kαὶ ἔς τε τoὺς Σιkελoὺς πεpιέπεμπov, ἔvθα μὲv φύλαkας, πpὸς δὲ τoὺς πpέσ βεις, kαὶ ὲς τὰ πεpιπόλια τὰ ὲv τῆ χώpα φpo upὰ ὲσεkόμιϛ ἐσεkόμιϛov, τά τε ὲv τῆ πόλει ὃπλωv ἐζετάσει kαὶ ἳππωv ἐσkπouv εὶ ἐvτελῆ ἐστὶ, kαὶ ταλλα ώϛ ἐπὶ ταχεῖ πoλέμω kαὶ ὃσov oὺ παpόvτι kαθίσταvτo.

126 Thucydides 6.52 ; 7.13.

127 Thucydides 6.94. On the Syracusans’strategy of territorial defense and its success, Ober J., The Athenian Revolution, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 78-79.

128 Thucydides 7.25.

129 Ober J., op. cit., p. 80-84.

130 Aeneas the Tactician 9.1.

131 Diodorus 20.88.7-9.

132 Diodorus 20.84.5-6.

133 Damophilos 20.93.2 ; Menedamos 20.93.3-4 (here the Dorian [Rhodian] form of the proper name is used, Diodorus giving the koine form) ; Amyntas 20.93.5.

134 P. Berol., 11632, l. 10-12.

135 Diodorus 20.97.5-6. On the episode, see also above and n. 118.

136 Diodorus 20.88.9. On the Knossians, see above, the analysis of the sling-bullets found in Kamiros.

137 Diodorus 20.98.1.

138 Diodorus 20.96.1-3 and 98.1, with Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 88 for the estimate of the quantities involved.

139 Diodorus 20.93.4 : ἐσθῆτα βασιλιkήv ; Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, 22.1 : γpάμματα kαὶ στpώματα kαὶ ίμάτια.

140 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.24.

141 Appian, ibid.

142 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.25.

143 Appian, Mithridatic Wars, 4.26.

144 For the contrast between Niederwerfungsstrategie and Ermattungsstrategie, Delbrück H., Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte, Berlin, de Gruyter, IV, 2000 [IV, Berlin, 1920], p. 582-589.

145 On the peace terms, Diodorus 20.99.3, with Wiemer H.-U., Krieg, op. cit., p. 91-92.