A risk of civil discord or unrest (stasis) was always present in any polis because of the discrepancy between the powers in the possession of, on the one hand, the demos or broad group of citizens and, on the other, the more select or discrete hierarchical groups that existed in the community. Among these elite groups and among the far larger citizen body, the permutations for factional groupings were endless. Figures from the elite could infl uence and lead sections of the community, while opponents from inside or outside that section of the polis could do likewise. Th e stasis at Syracuse, which also engulfed the entire south-east of Sicily and which terminated Deinomenid rule in the years between 466 and 460, adds a diff erent and perhaps unique aspect to this defi nition. An analysis of Diodorus’ narrative (11.67-8, 72-3, 76.1-6), on which we have to rely for information, reveals that it appears to be derived from two sources. Th e evidence it presents allows for a possible identifi cation of, and another perspective on, what was considered demos and ‘elite’ in these particular circumstances. Th e seemingly widespread unrest at the time exposes a highly novel interaction between ethnic, socio-political and economic groups. Moreover, this discord was of a more lengthy duration than Diodorus or his source was prepared to admit. Th is fact has an impact on the chronology of the rule of the demos in Syracuse in the latter half of the fi ft h century BC. Th e narrative provided by Diodorus, or his sources, requires some analysis not only for an indication of reliability but also to illustrate the extent to which manipulation of the evidence has been accomplished.1