Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography Volume I Part 1.djvu/136

 120 AMBBAGIA. oonoerted a plan in the Mowing year (429), wiih the Peloponnesians, for the complete subjugation of Acarnania. They had extensive relatiouB ^th the Chaonians and other tribes in the interior of Epiros, and were thus enabled to collect a formidable armj of Epirots, with which diej joined the Lacedaie- monian oommanderi Cnemns. The united forces advanced into Acarnania as &r as Stratus, but under the walls of this city the Epirots were defeated by the Acamanians, and the expedition came to an end. Kotwithstanding this second misfortuiM, the Am- bradots marchdl against Argos again in b. c. 426. The history of this expedition, and of their two terrible defeats by Demosthenes and the Acamanians, is reUted elsewhere. [Abgos Ajcphilochicuh.] It appears that nearly the whole adult military po- pulation of the city was destroyed, and Thucydides considers their calamity to have been the greatest that befel any Grecian city during the earlier part of the war. Demosthenes was anxious to inarch straightway against Ambracia, which would have surrendered witiiout a blow; but the Acamanians refused to undertake the entarprize, fearing that the Athenians at Ambracia would be more troublesome neighbours to them than the Ambraciots. The Acamanians and Amphilochians now concluded a peace and allianoe with the Ambraciots for 100 years. Ambracia had become so helpless that the Corinthians shortly afterwards sent 300 hoplites to the city fat its defence. (Jhuc. iL 68, 80, iii. 105 —114.) The severe blow which Ambracia had reodved prevented it from taking any active part in tiie re- mainder of the war. It sent, however, some troops to the assLstance of Syracuse, when besieged by the Athenians. (Thuc. vii. 58.) Ambracia was sub- sequently conquered by Philip II., king of Macedcmia. On the accession of Alexander the Great (b. c. 336) it expelled the Macedonian garrison, but soon after- wards submitted to Alexander. (Diod. xvii. 3, 4.) At a later time it became subject to P)Trhu8, who made it the capital of his dominions, and his usual place of residence, and who also adorned it with numerous works of art. (PoL xxii. 13; Liv. xxxviii. 9; Strab. p. 325.) Pyrrhus built here a strongly fortified palace, which was called after him Pyr- rhSum (Xl^tiov). (Pol. xxii. 10; Liv. xxxviii. 5.) Ambracia aftennurds fell into the hands of the Aeto- lians, and the possession of this powerful city was one of the diief sources of the Aetolian power in this part of Greece. When the Romans declared war against the Aetolians, Ambracia was besieged by the Roman consul M. Fulvius Nobilior, B.C. 189. This siege is one of the most memorable in ancient warfare for the bravery displayed in the defence of the town. In the course of the si^ the Aetolians concluded a peace with Fulvius, whereupon Am- bracia opened its gates to the besiegers. The consul, however, stripped it of its valuable works of art, and removed them to Rome. (Pol. xxii. 9 — 13; Liv. xxxviii. 3 — 9.) From this time Ambracia ra- pidly declined, and its min was completed by Augus- tus, who removed its inhabitants to Nicopolis, which he founded in commemoration of his victory at Actium. (Strab. p. 325; Pans. v. 23. § 3.) There is no longer any doubt that Arta is the site of Ambracia, the position of which was for a long time a subject of dispute. Tho remains of the walls of Ambracia confinn the statements of the ancient writers respecting the strength of its fortifi- cations. The walls were built of immimiw quadran- AMBRAGL^. gular blocks of stone. Lieut Wolfe mesBnred one 18 ft. by 5. The foundations of the acropolis msy still be traced, but there are no other remains k Hellenic date. The general form of the city is ^vca in the following plan taken from Leake. FLAN OF AMBRACIA. 1. The Acropolis. 2. Mt Perranthes. 3. Bridge over the Arachthns. [The dotted line shows the ancient walls, whers the foundations only remain. The entire hne, where the remains are more ooosidarable.] How long Ambracia continued deserted after the removal of its inhabitants to Nicopolis, we do not know; but it was re-occupied under the Byzantine Empire, and became again a place of importance. Its modern name of Arta is evidenUy a corruption of the river Arachthns, upon which it stood; and we find this name in the Byzantine writers as early as the eleventh century. In the fourteenth century Arta was reckoned the chief town in Acarnania, whence it was frequently called by the name oi Acamama simply. Cyriacus calls it sometimes Arechthea Aoamana. (Bockh, Corpus Ifucr, No. 1797.) It is still the principal town in this part of Greece, and, like the ancient city, has given its name to the neighbouring gulf. The population of Artams reckoned to be about 7000 m the year 1830. (Leake, Northern Greece^ vol. i. p. 206, seq. ; Wolfe, Journal of Geographical Society, vol. iii. p. 82, seq.) There were three other places in the territoiy of Ambracia mentioned by ancient writers: 1. Am- bracus. 2. The port of Ambracia. S. Craneia. Ambracus {"AfiSpaxos) is described by Polybius as a place well fortified by ramparts and outworks, and as surrounded by roanhes, through which there was only one narrow causeway leading to the place. It was taken by Philip V., king of Macedonia, in B.C. 219, as a preliminary to an attack upon Ambracia (Pol. iv. 61, 63.) Scyhix probably alludes to this place, when he says (p. 12) that Ambracia had a fortress near its harbour; for near the western shore of the old mouth of the river Arachthns {Arta) some ruins have been discovered, whose topographical sitration accords with the description of Polyluns. They are situated on a swampy island, in a nuushy lake near the sea. They inclosed an area of about a quarter of a mile in extent, and appeared to be