Scanned text contains errors.
91, xv. 44 ; Polyaen. in, 9 ; Corn. Nep. tph. 1 ; Suid. s. v. *l(f>iKpari$€S ; Strab. viii. p. 389.) In the spring of 392 Iphicrates with his peltasts formed part of the garrison of the fortress Peiraeum, in the Corinthian territory, whence he was summoned to the defence of Corinth, against which Agesilaus had made a feint of marching. But the real object of the Spartan king was Peiraeum, and, when it was w^hened by the withdrawal of Iphicrates, he advanced and took it. Meanwhile Iphicrates reached Corinth ; and Here it was that, sallying forth with his targeteers, he defeated and nearly destroyed the Lacedaemonian Mora, which was on its way back to Lechaeum, after having escorted for some distance homewards the Amy-claeans of the army of Agesilaus, returning to Laconia for the celebration of the Hyacinthian festival. This exploit of Iphicrates became very celebrated throughout Greece, and had more importance assigned to it than we should be inclined at first to imagine possible, as is clear from the grief it caused in the camp of Agesilaus, .from the caution with which he marched home through the Peloponnesus, and from the suspension of the Theban negotiations for terms with Sparta. Thirl-wall supposes that it may have also prevented the peace between Lacedaemon and Athens, which andocidbs with others had been commissioned to conclude. Iphicrates, encouraged by his success, recovered Sidus and Crommyon, which Praxitas had taken, as well as Oenb'e, where Agesilaus had placed a garrison. Soon after he retired, or was dismissed, from the command, in consequence, it seems, of the jealousy of the Argives ; for he had shown a desire to reduce the Corinthian territory under the power .of Athens, and had put to death some Corinthians of the Argive party. He was succeeded by chabrias. (Xen. Hell. iv. 5, 8. § 34; Diod. xiv. 91, 92 ; Plut. Ages. 22 ; Dem. Phil. i. p. 46 ; c. Aristoc. p. 686; Paus. iii. 10 ; Nep. Ipli. 2 ; Andoc. de Pace.) In b. c. 389 he was sent to the Hellespont to counteract the operations of anaxi-bius, who was defeated by him and slain in the following year. In spite of his victory, however, Iphicrates was not able to prevail against antal-cidas. (Xen. Hell. iv. 8. §§ 34, &c. ; Polyaen. iii. 9.)
On the peace of 387 Iphicrates did not return to Athens ; but we do not know whether he acted on a command of the state or on his own judgment in aiding Seuthes, king of the Odrysae, to recover his kingdom, from which he had been expelled, possibly by Cotys (see Rehdantz, ii. $ 4 ; Senec. Exc. Cont. vi. 5.). Be that as it will, we find him not long after in alliance with the latter prince, who gave him his daughter in marriage, and perhaps enabled him to build the town of Apvs in Thrace (Dem. c. Arist. p. 663 ; Anaxand. ap. A then. iv. p. 131 ; Nep. Tpli. 2, 3 ; Isaeus, de Haer. Menecl. § 7 ; Polyaen. iii. 9 ; Suid. and Harpocr. s. v. Apvs.) When the Athenians, in B. a 377, recalled Chabrias from the service of Acoris, king of Egypt, on the remonstrance of Pharnabazus, they also sent Iphicrates with 20,000 Greek mercenaries to aid the satrap in reducing Egypt to obedience. Several years, however, wasted by the Persians in preparation, elapsed before the allied troops set forth from Ace (Acre). They met with some success at first, till a dispute arose between Iphicrates and Pharnabazus, the former of whom was anxious to attack Memphis,
while the over-cautious satrap would not consent, and (much time having been lost) when the season of the Nile's inundation came on, he drew off his army. Iphicrates, remembering the fate of conon, and fearing for his personal safety, fled to Athens, and was denounced to the Athenians by Pharnabazus as having caused the failure of the expedition. The people promised to punish him as he deserved ; but the next year (b. c. 373) they appointed him to. command against Mnasippus in Corcyra, in conjunction with callistratus and Chabrias, with the former of whom he also joined in prosecuting timotheus, the superseded general. In getting ready the fleet necessary for this service, Iphicrates exhibited great and probably not over-scrupulous activity; and the Athenians allowed him (perhaps through the influence of Callistratus) to make use of all the ships round the coast, even the Paralus and Salaminia, on a promise from him that he would send back a great number in return for them. The state of affairs in the West left him no time to lose, and his crews were in a very imperfect state of training ; but he remedied this by making the whole voyage an exercise of naval tactics. On his way he landed in Cephallenia (where he received full assurance of the death of Mnasippus), and having brought over the island to the Athenians, he sailed on to Corcyra. Defeating here the force which Dionysius I. of Syra^ cuse had sent to the aid of the Lacedaemonians, he carried on the war with vigour till the peace of 371 put an end to operations and recalled him to Athens. (Xen. Hell. vi. 2, 3 ; Diod. xv. 29, 41— 43, 47, xvi. 57 ; Nep. IpTi. 2 ; Dem. c. Tim. pp. 1187, 1188.) In b. c. 369, when the Peloponnesus was invaded by Epaminondas, Iphicrates was appointed to the command of the forces voted by Athens for the aid of Sparta ; but he did not effect, perhaps he did not wish to effect, any thing against the Thebans, who made their way back in safety through an unguarded pass of the Isthmus. (See Vol. II. p. 22, b ; Rehdantz, iv. § 6.) About b. c. 367, he was sent against Amphipolis, apparently, however, to observe rather than to act, so small was the force committed to him. At this period it was that he listened to the entreaties of eurydice, the widow of Amyntas II. (who had adopted Iphicrates as his son), and drove out from Macedonia the pretender Pausariias. But, notwithstanding this favour, Ptolemy of Alorus, the regent of Ma-cedon, and the reputed paramour of Eurydice, supported Amphipolis against Iphicrates, who, with the aid of the adventurer charidemus, continued the war for three years, at the end of which time the Amphipolitans agreed to surrender, and gave hostages for the fulfilment of their promise ; immediately after which Iphicrates was superseded by Timotheus. (Aesch, de Fals. Leg. pp. 31, 32 ; Nep. IpJi. 3 ; Dem. c. Arist. p. 669 ; Suid. s. v. Kdpavos.)
The connection of Iphicrates with Cotys may perhaps have led to the decree which deprived him of the command in those parts ; and, if any alarm was felt by the Athenians on this score, the result proved that it was not unfounded, for we find him soon after aiding his father-in-law in his war with Athens for the possession of the Thracian Cher-sonesus. This seems, indeed, to have been the ground of the ypa<pr) %evlas which Timotheus pledged himself in the strongest way to bring against him, though he afterwards abandoned it.