Page:History of Greece Vol X.djvu/317

 CONQUEST OF SAMOS. 295 on the opposite mainland. How or when Tigranes had acquired it we do not know ; but the Persians, when once left by the peace of Antalkidas in quiet possession of the continental Asiatic Greeks, naturally tended to push their dominion over the neighboring islands. After carrying on his military operations in Samos, with eight thousand peltasts and thirty triremes, for ten or eleven months, Timotheus became master of it. His success was the more gratifying, as he had found means to pay and maintain his troops during the whole time at the cost of enemies ; without either drawing upon the Athenian treasury, or extorting contribu- tions from allies. 1 An important possession was thus acquired for Athens, while a considerable number of Samians of the opposite party went into banishment, with the loss of their properties. Since Samos was not among the legitimate possessions of the king of Persia, this conquest was not understood to import war between him and Athens. Indeed it appears that the revolt of Ariobar- zanes, and the uncertain fidelity of various neighboring satraps, shook for some time the king's authority, and absorbed his reve- nues in these regions. Autophradates, the satrap of Lydia, and Mausolus, native prince of Karia under Persian supremacy, attacked Ariobarzanes, with the view, real or pretented, of quelling his revolt ; and laid seige to Assus and Adramyttium. But they are said to have been induced to desist by the personal influence of Agesilaus. 2 As the latter had no army, nor any means of allurement (except perhaps some money derived from Ariobarzanes), we may fairly presume that the two besiegers were not very earnest in the cause. Moreover, we shall find both 1 Demosth. ut sup.; Isokrates, Or. XT, (De Permut.) s. 118; Cornel. Nepos, Timoth. c. 1. The stratagems whereby Timotheus procured money for his troops at Sa- mos, are touched iipon in the Pseudo-Aristoteles, (Economic, ii, 23 ; and in Polyam. iii, 10, 9 ; so far as we can understand them, they appear to be only contributions, levied under a thin disguise, upon the inhabitants. Since Ariobarzanes gave money to Agesilaus, he may perhaps have given some to Timotheus during this siege. 9 Xenoph. Enc. Ages, ii, 26 ; Polyaanus, vii, 26. I do not know whether it is to this period that we are to refer the siege of Atarneus by Autophradates, which he was induced to relinquish by an ingenious proposition of Eubulus, who held the place (Aristot. Po- litic, ii, 4 10).