Diodorus and Plutarch provide completely different accounts of the battle at the Eurymedon (ca. 466 b.C.). Diodorus’ version, traditionally regarded as historically unreliable, possesses a literary and inherent logic. Plutarch’s detailed account preserves entwined fragments of various 4th century BC authors: rather than trying to unravel and isolate each one, they may be seen as a case of ‘cumulative’, clustered fragment embedded in Plutarch’s narrative. Plutarch may have mainly relied on Callisthenes’ account which, contrary to Jacoby’s proposal, probably came from the work titled Deeds of Alexander. Both Diodorus’ text and the fragmentary authors preserved by Plutarch are part of a long-standing tradition which begins in the 4th century – with a surge at the time of Alexander – and regards the Persian wars, and especially the battle at the Eurymedon, as a model and ideological repository. Keywords: Eurymedon, Plutarch, Callisthenes, Cimon, fragmentary historiography.