The trial against Leocrates in 330 BC is mainly characterized by the fact, that the prosecutor, Lycurgus, has no valid evidence to blame the accused for any crime. According to Lycurgus, Leocrates should be impeached of having left Athens after the defeat in the battle of Chaironea, 339 BC, at the time of greatest danger for the city and in consequence of having neglected a recently passed decree which stated, that all citizens could be put in charge of the defense by the generals. Since the prosecutor is lacking for evidence, he is talking about the greatness of Athens in the past by a very frequent use of historical examples and excursus.Analysing these historical examples in detail reveals, that Lycurgus bases his accounts of the past on an existing rhetorical ?tradition of topoi? and that he implicates them in the actual political situation of Athens.Leocrates, politically and economically completely unimportant, is more than eight years after his so-called crime used as a projection screen for a moral and political message, which should awake the attic citizens from their political lethargy, but at the same time it should strengthen Lycurgus supremacy in Athenian politics. One of Lycurgus? the methods applied is connecting his glorious and for ancient conditions well documented family history to these historical examples. Specific allusions to his ancestors, who were ? according to the orator ? at all times ready to sacrifice themselves for their polis, characterize him as the ideal prosecutor for a coward, who left his home town in times of trouble.