Agesilaus II, born disabled and considered to be the greatest king of Sparta and the first to go on campaign in Asia against the Persians, is the subject of three ancient Greek historian’s works, but none of them seem to agree on the facts.
Three noteworthy ancient Greek historians have written accounts of Agesilaus II, along with his policies and involvement in various battles: Plutarch, Xenophon, and Diodorus.
There has been much debate by more recent historians as to which of these ancient scholars has been more accurate about the life of Agesilaus. Many have claimed Xenophon’s work exceeds others in both accuracy and storytelling flair.
It has been argued that the fourteenth and fifteenth books of Diodorus are of minimal value and that Xenophon‘s Hellenica and Agesilaus and Plutarch’s Agesilaus are far superior, as they are more detailed works.
The disabled Spartan king’s reign
Agesilaus’s older brother and then king, Agis II, died on his return trip from Delphi between 400 and 398 BC. Following his funeral, Agesilaus contested the claim of Agis II’s son, Leotychidas, capitalizing on the common belief in Sparta that Leotychidas was not the legitimate son of Alcibiades. Alcibiades was a well-known Athenian statesman and nephew of Pericles who had been exiled in Sparta during the Peloponnesian War. He then had a romantic affair with the queen.
The rumors were given credit by the fact that even Agis only recognized Leotychidas as his son while on his deathbed.
An advocate for Leotychidas’ rule, Diopeithes quoted an old oracle who had said that a Spartan king could not be disabled, thus weakening Agesilaus’ claim. However, Lysander returned the refutation by stating that the oracle had to be understood figuratively. The disability cautioned against by the oracle could actually best refer to the uncertainty around Leotychidas’ paternity, and this argument won the day.
The influence of Lysander in securing Agesilaus position as king has been hotly debated among historians, mostly because Plutarch makes him the primary instigator of the plot, while Xenophon downplays Lysander’s influence.
Xenophon’s Agesilaus, the disabled Spartan king
Xenophon’s account is generally considered to be extremely praiseworthy of Agesilaus, being the only man that Xenophon ever described as a “perfectly good man.”
Some historians claim the accuracy of the historian’s account of the king is undermined by its all-too-clear admiration for him. Xenophon writes, for example, that Agesilaus was a man unimpeachable in point of ancestry and virtue, an outstanding general, combining jaw-dropping physical courage with cagey prudence. He was generous to friends, harsh towards enemies, but noble in victory and devoted in all things to the good of Sparta and always obedient to her laws whatever the cost to himself.
He continues, writing that Agesilaus was capable of leasing his fellow citizens to every virtue. Yet he was concerned for the well-being of all Greece, too, and he showed an attractive philanthropy or love of human beings.
Other historians argue that one should overlook the adoration Xenophon had for Agesilaus because, despite the evident bias, his is still one of the best accounts.
Plutarch’s account of Agesilaus
Plutarch’s account of Agesilaus seems to be slightly less admiring and perhaps more factual than Xenophon’s. Plutarch tells us that once king, Agesilaus expelled Leotychidas as a bastard. However, knowing that Leotychidas’ family on his mother’s side were very poor, he decided to distribute half of his estates among them, therefore “making his inheritance yield him good will and reputation instead of envy and hatred.”
Plutarch does remark on the kindly nature of Agesilaus, however, when he explains how he dealt with the various aristocrats after becoming king:
“At that time the ephors (senior Spartan magistrate) and senators had the greatest power in the state, of whom the former hold office for a year only, while the senators enjoy their dignity for life, their offices having been instituted to restrain the power of the kings, as I have said in my life of Lycurgus.”
He goes on to say that, typically, from the outset of their rule, the kings were traditionally at odds and in feuds with the ephors and senators.
He continues: “But Agesilaus took the opposite course. Instead of colliding and fighting with them, he courted their favor, winning their support before setting out on any undertaking; and whenever he was invited to meet them, hastening to them on the run.”
Plutarch adds:
“If ever the ephors visited him when he was seated in his royal chair and administering justice, he rose in their honor; and as men were from time to time made members of the senate, he would send each one a cloak and an ox as a mark of honor.
Consequently, while he was thought to be honoring and exalting the dignity of their office, he was unawares increasing his own influence and adding to the power of the king a greatness which was conceded out of good-will towards him.”
Diodorus’ account of Agesilaus, the disabled Spartan king
It is generally believed that Diodorus’ account of Agesilaus is the least insightful. For example, the historian leaves out all political intrigue around Agesilaus’ accession to the throne and instead introduces him as the commander assigned to conduct the war in Asia against the Persians in 396 BC with a large army.
Diodorus’ account of the opening offensive is no more than a few sentences:
“Agesilaus leads his army across the plain of the Cayster, ravaging country under Persian control until he reaches Cyme, whence he pillages Phrygia and adjoining areas for most of the summer before returning to Ephesus in the early autumn laden with plunder.”
His retelling of the next campaign is slightly more thorough, as it includes a report on a battle of significance, but remains starkly factual:
“Agesilaus, pillaging the country around Sipylus, is followed by Tissaphernes (a Persian commander) with a large army. Eventually not far from Sardis he lays an ambush, catches the Persians in disorder between two forces, inflicts heavy casualties upon them, and captures their camp.”
Many modern-day historians claim Diodorus’ analysis of Spartan policy during the reign of Agesilaus shows great inconsistencies. However, they also state that the inconsistency is of interest and value because it sheds light on the literary tradition from which it is derived.
Most scholars agree that Diodorus is dependent for most of his material on Greece and the East from his eleventh to his fifteenth book upon the history of Ephorus.
