And yet there are those who stand in awe of the greatness of the King’s power and
 maintain that he is a dangerous enemy, Cf. Dem. 2.22 . dwelling at length on the many reversals which
 he has brought about in the affairs of the Hellenes. In my judgement, however, those who
 express such sentiments do not discourage but urge on the expedition; for if he is going
 to be hard to make war against when we have composed our differences and while he, himself
 is still beset by dissensions, then verily we should be in utmost dread of that time when
 the conflicting interests of the barbarians are settled and are governed by a single
 purpose, while we continue to be, as now, hostile to each other. But even though these objectors do in fact lend support to my contention, yet, for all
 that, they are mistaken in their views about the power of the King; for if they could show
 that he had ever in the past prevailed over both Athens and Lacedaemon at once,
 they would have reason for attempting to alarm us now. But if this is not the case, and
 the truth is that when we and the Lacedaemonians have been in conflict he has but given
 support to one of the two sides and so rendered the achievements of that one side more
 brilliant, this is no evidence of his own power. For in such times of crisis small forces
 have often played a great part in turning the scale; Cf.
 Dem. 2.14 . for example, even for the people of
 Chios Chios revolted from Athens and joined Sparta 
 after the Sicilian expedition ( Thuc. 8.7 ). After the battle
 of Cnidus she joined Athens again ( Dio. Sic.
 14.84-94 ). I might make the claim that whichever side they have been
 inclined to support, that side has proved stronger on the sea. Nay, it is obviously not fair to estimate the power of the King from those exploits in
 which he has joined forces with the one or the other of us, but rather from the wars which
 he, unaided, has fought on his own behalf. Take, first, the case of Egypt : since its revolt from the King, what progress has
 he made against its inhabitants? Did he not dispatch to this war Isocrates alone is authority for this war. the most renowned of the
 Persians, Abrocomas and Tithraustes and Pharnabazus, and did not they, after remaining
 there three years and suffering more disasters than they inflicted, finally withdraw in
 such disgrace that the rebels are no longer content with their freedom, but are already
 trying to extend their dominion over the neighboring peoples as well? Next, there is his campaign against Evagoras. Evagoras is ruler over but a single
 city Salamis ; he is given over to the Persians by the terms of the
 Treaty See terms of Treaty of Antalcidas given in note on
 115. ; his is an insular power and he has already sustained a disaster to his
 fleet; he has, at present, for the defense of his territory only three thousand
 light-armed troops; yet, humble as is the power of Evagoras, the King has not the power to
 conquer it in war, but has already frittered away six years in the attempt; and, if we may
 conjecture the future by the past, there is much more likelihood that someone else will
 rise in revolt before Evagoras is reduced by the siege—so slothful is the King in his
 enterprises.