{"title":"海洋帝国作为四世纪的次等霸权","authors":"C. Bearzot","doi":"10.13135/2039-4985/1920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In two passages of book XIV Diodorus emphasizes the recognized hegemony exercised by Sparta both on land and sea after the Peloponnesian War (XIV 10 and 13). We have to put these places side to side with others: XIV 84 and 97, XV 23, XV 60, XV 78-79, from which comes out a judgment of failure of the maritime hegemony as such: it takes its full value only if it is combined with that on earth. Unlike Xenophon, who still believed in the dual hegemony and in the division of spheres of influence between Sparta and Athens, Diodorus reflects a perspective which is not Athenian and which reopens the debate on the conditions for the exercise of Panhellenic hegemony. Diodorus probably draws this topic from an historiographical tradition interested in Boeotian hegemony.","PeriodicalId":30377,"journal":{"name":"Historika Studi di Storia Greca e Romana","volume":"84 1","pages":"287-298"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"L’impero del mare come egemonia subalterna nel IV secolo (Diodoro, libri XIV-XV)\",\"authors\":\"C. Bearzot\",\"doi\":\"10.13135/2039-4985/1920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In two passages of book XIV Diodorus emphasizes the recognized hegemony exercised by Sparta both on land and sea after the Peloponnesian War (XIV 10 and 13). We have to put these places side to side with others: XIV 84 and 97, XV 23, XV 60, XV 78-79, from which comes out a judgment of failure of the maritime hegemony as such: it takes its full value only if it is combined with that on earth. Unlike Xenophon, who still believed in the dual hegemony and in the division of spheres of influence between Sparta and Athens, Diodorus reflects a perspective which is not Athenian and which reopens the debate on the conditions for the exercise of Panhellenic hegemony. Diodorus probably draws this topic from an historiographical tradition interested in Boeotian hegemony.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Historika Studi di Storia Greca e Romana\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"287-298\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Historika Studi di Storia Greca e Romana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13135/2039-4985/1920\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Historika Studi di Storia Greca e Romana","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13135/2039-4985/1920","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
在第十四卷的两段中,狄奥多鲁斯强调了伯罗奔尼撒战争后斯巴达在陆地和海洋上公认的霸权(第十四章10和13节)。我们必须把这些地方与其他地方放在一起:XIV 84和97,XV 23, XV 60, XV 78-79,从中得出了对海上霸权失败的判断:只有当它与地球上的霸权结合在一起时,它才会发挥其全部价值。色诺芬仍然相信双重霸权以及斯巴达和雅典之间势力范围的划分,而迪奥多罗斯则不同,他反映了一种非雅典的观点,并重新开启了关于泛希腊霸权行使条件的辩论。狄奥多罗斯很可能是从对波斯霸权感兴趣的史学传统中引出这个话题的。
L’impero del mare come egemonia subalterna nel IV secolo (Diodoro, libri XIV-XV)
In two passages of book XIV Diodorus emphasizes the recognized hegemony exercised by Sparta both on land and sea after the Peloponnesian War (XIV 10 and 13). We have to put these places side to side with others: XIV 84 and 97, XV 23, XV 60, XV 78-79, from which comes out a judgment of failure of the maritime hegemony as such: it takes its full value only if it is combined with that on earth. Unlike Xenophon, who still believed in the dual hegemony and in the division of spheres of influence between Sparta and Athens, Diodorus reflects a perspective which is not Athenian and which reopens the debate on the conditions for the exercise of Panhellenic hegemony. Diodorus probably draws this topic from an historiographical tradition interested in Boeotian hegemony.