Ambracia, l'Epiro e Atene prima e dopo il 431 a.C.

Whereas there is some evidence of Corcyrean interference in the Corinthian control of Leucas and Anactorium, Ambracia is the only among the three Cypselid colonies in North-Western Greece that always kept close and exclusive connections with the mother city. That comes out most clearly in ca. 435-426 BC: her huge monetary issues at the time of the clash with Corcyra and her decisive military and strategic role in the north-western theatre of war till the disaster of 426 make Ambracia the sturdiest sentry of the Corinthian interests in this region. Moreover, Ambracia acted as an outpost in the relations with Epirotic tribes. As is shown by the expeditions against Amphilochian Argos and the Acarnanians in 430 and 429 BC, this polis was able to raise conspicuous armies from the large Epirotic hinterland. A careful investigation of the available evidence allows us to put forward some new considerations on these topics. The Chaonian hegemony asserted by one source (Theopompus: FGrHist 115 F 382), generally regarded as a forgery, is very likely to reflect the historical relations among the Epirotic ethne in the second half of the 5th century BC. On the other hand, though there is no reason to doubt the reliability of the tradition about the granting of Athenian citizenship to the young Molossian king Tharyps, we have no certain chronological clue for dating the beginnings of the relations between Athens and Epirus. The absence of Epirotic forces in the expedition of 426 BC, equally promoted by Ambracia, seems to be the backlash of the defeat in 429 more than the result of the political and diplomatic Athenian manoeuvres before 426 BC allegedly witnessed by the mention, in Euripides’ Andromache (1246-1247), of the lineage of the Molossian kings from the son of Andromache and Neoptolemus. This tradition was already present in Pindar’s seventh Nemaea (39-40); at the best, the Euripidean tragedy (whose likeliest date of representation is 422-421 BC) may echo the lively Athenian concern for the political alignment of this region after Brasidas’ expedition had put in jeopardy the Athenian positions in Northern Greece. On the whole, the Thessalian perspective and the constant cultural osmosis between the two sides of the Pindus chain are of key importance to understand both the spreading of mythical traditions to the Epirotic world and its political history. Hence, the role of Ambracia in the ‘hellenization’ of the neighbouring countries, clearly attested for the Amphilochians (Thuc. 2, 68, 3-5), is more difficult to grasp and evaluate with regard to Epirus. Keywords: Ambracia, Epirus, Molossians, Athens, Euripides.