Chapter 4 surveys a wide range of friendly and hostile interstate relations in ancient societies, where war was often the normal state of affairs. Notwithstanding the numerous conflicts, polities tried in the end, through alliances and diplomatic relations, to establish peaceful relations in view of political stability and economic prosperity. The chapter analyses hospitality rules regarding foreigners, treaties between polities and the establishment of diplomatic relations, which emerged as an international system in the ancient Near East during the mid-fourteenth century bce. An alternative to diplomacy in conflict management, typical of the Greek world, was arbitration and mediation with the help of a third party. In a final section, the chapter outlines how states, when diplomacy failed, started a war procedurally. In conclusion, the chapter argues that, in the absence of an international court, the enforcement of diplomatic rules and treaties was in many ancient societies ensured by the supranational authority of the gods.

A long-standing rivalry, filled to the brim with warfare and mutual dislike – that is the picture provided in most investigations of Atheno-Boiotian relations. These often, however, employ a shorter chronological framework, rather than a diachronic overview of the Archaic and Classical periods (550–323 BCE), as will be given here. Moving through this time frame, the fluctuations in outlook between the two will be examined, illustrating that the notion of long-standing enmity with brief moments of friendship portray a faulty impression of this relationship. The wider perspective allows for a more complex picture to emerge. It also brings to the fore the issues of historiography, or how the silence or cursory treatment of events in our sources should not automatically be taken as evidence of periods of hostility, such as after the Persian Wars. This analysis of these periods betrays the intentions of our (literary) sources and, in turn, the assumptions of later scholars in following them. Instead, the neighbourly relationship was mostly one of peaceful co-existence, only occasionally disturbed by the threat of a common foe or through direct warfare.

How did polities interact in the Archaic and Classical periods, and which norms influenced their behaviour? This chapter aims to answer these questions. By moving away from the dominant Realist interpretation of ancient history, and employing a variety of themes that played a role in neighbourly relations, a fresh and different understanding of neighbourly diplomatic interactions emerges. Four norms are investigated; first, the decision to go to war or avoid that possibility; second, friendship ties; third, reciprocity; and fourth, reputation. By analysing the reasoning behind the breakdown of neighbourly relations, it will become that clear political actors frequently sought ways to restore the status quo and peaceful co-existence. A second factor is the friendship ties between leaders and how this influenced the direction of the neighbours vis-à-vis one another. The third aspect is reciprocity, and how this formed a staple of neighbourly relations and could be called upon to reinforce neighbourly ties. Finally, the notions of reputation and trust are investigated to show that the reputation of a polis influenced neighbourly relations, whether positively or negatively. Earlier behaviour, such as abandoning an alliance, impacted decision-making and required significant efforts to restore the trust between the neighbours.

What remains to be said of the Atheno-Boiotian relationship? Was it a rivalry, or can we consider something altogether more benign? The conclusion ties together all the previously investigated phenomena and aspects, such as different aspects of interstate relations, geopolitics and commemoration. It returns to Pagondas’ speech in an effort to underline that the Boiotian general was indeed referring to an anomaly in neighbourly relations. Instead, the neighbours were more mutually compatible and reliant on each other’s goodwill, meaning that warfare and hostility were not the preferred mode of interaction between the two. This investigation thus provides a blueprint for further analyses of neighbourly relationships, since human experience is multifocal and cannot be caught in a simplistic, monolithic model that does not appreciate that complexity.

How should we perceive the relationship between Athenians and Boiotians in the Archaic and Classical periods (550–323 BCE)? Previous scholarship regarded it as rife with hostility, perpetually locked in mutual fear, only rarely interspersed with times of peace or alliance. In this introduction, the speech given by the Boiotian general Pagondas prior to the Battle of Delion (424 BCE) will be used to argue that his arguments about moralistic behaviour, commemoration and borderland interaction between the neighbours were an exception, rather than the rule, unlike conclusions of previous scholars. Following this speech, the chapter turns to a description of the geographical layout of both regions and how these were intertwined and connected. After this description, the three themes of the book – norms of interstate relations, geopolitical considerations and commemorative practices – are elaborated upon to show what the current state of scholarship on these issues is. It stresses that human experience and nature are complex and multifocal and should therefore treated as such, rather than aim for an overarching framework to capture the lived experience.