Tactike theoriai – manuals or philosophy

[Paralus]

What is not written by Xenophon is "this is what Jason might be expected to say". He reports this as the counsel offered to the Spartans after he'd refused assistance to the Thebans. Noteworthy is the fact that this refusal, reported in exactly the same manner as the counsel to the Spartans, is accepted by you without caveat: "they wished to fight a decisive battle but Jason talked them out of it;" (same post; cf post 31/7 where the part regarding Spartan allies is dismissed as 'untrue' "Again, if it were true..."). 'Sauce for the goose...' Perhaps we should lay aside the entirety of the words attributed to Jason by Xenophon; that "which Jason might be expected to say"?

A typical Paralus ‘red herring’, and yet another false attempt to discredit what I say. I did not say Xenophon wrote “this is what Jason ...etc”. Those were my comments by way of explanation. Nor do I ‘reject’ what Xenophon reports Jason as saying. I simply pointed out the unlikelihood of his words being true, as proven by the Spartan lack of reaction ( despite their notorious suspiciousness ), and the fact that if it were true, Jason would hardly betray the fact to the Spartans etc.

Your actual words were that "Xenophon does NOT say it actually occurred, it is merely something which Jason might be expected to say". What exactly does he say? Where does he preface this episode of Jason with a note of caution? There is no prefacing or qualifying remark by Xenophon indicating that this was something he was not certain of; something that may not have "actually occurred". Xenophon does not say that "it was said", "some report" or that "some say that". He does not provide an indirect, if prima facie logical, rationale to say that it was doubtful in some fashion (as he does for the Spartan's supposed early ascendency in battle without direct evidence). Xenophon simply states that Jason arrived and then went about counseling both sides over the next action. That Xenophon garnered this information from Spartan sources is not doubted. What may be doubted (if doubt should be cast) is exactly what he knew of the words between the Thebans and Jason for which any of the Spartans are hardly to have been present (though Jason is likely to have informed the Spartans of the gist of his Theban advice). Jason counsels the Spartans against fighting and the wavering of their allies was cogent to the point.

[agesilaos]

The notion that Xenophon was disguising hoplites as his reformed Persians founders once one reads the text; which I am doing for the references to depth. On the first page of the thread, Xenophon of Brisvegas, stated that

Moreover, the first thing Cyrus does is re-equip his army with ‘hopla’[ heavy infantry equipment] for hand-to-hand fighting, abandoning bows and javelins and missile weapons. [Cyropaedia II.1.9 et seq]. Thus his drill is ‘hoplite drill’, intended as a model for Greek heavy infantry, fighting hand to hand in close order

.

In fact his men are equipped with a thorax, breastplate, a gerrha, light wicker shield and a kopis(cutting sword) or sagaris (a light axe); and would look like this,

ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐστὶ θώραξ μὲν περὶ τὰ στέρνα, γέρρον δὲ εἰς τὴν ἀριστεράν, κοπὶς δὲ ἢ σάγαρις εἰς τὴν δεξιάν:
...a corselet for round the chest, a wicker shield for the left hand and a kopis or sagaris for the right:

cyreans.jpg (57.08 KiB) Viewed 5414 times

Not very ‘hoplite’ nor do any of their exercises imply close order fighting, close quarters, yes as inevitable for these as it was for the similarly armed Persians who attack in small bands in Herodotos, and are depicted on several vases; these were loose order troops. Xenophon, of course never mentions intervals. In Book II 4 xxii ff Krysantas is sent with half the infantry to occupy a well wooded mountain, this is not the work of hoplites but peltasts or psiloi, the son of Gryllos is clearly thinking of actual Persian troops rather than cod-hoplites.

Nor has he thought his unit organisation out very well, at II 1 xxii , the pempadarch has command of five, and the dekadarch of 10 and at 1 xxv a ‘taxis’ is explicitly 100 and a lochos 50 at 2 ix, so there must be 5 decades to a lochos and two lochoi to a taxis. Then we get to the infamous ‘Dinner drill’ and suddenly there are only two decades to lochos and four lochoi to a taxis! But it gets better when the Indian envoy arrives and suddenly at 4 iv the dekadarchs have been promoted to dodekadarchs! This is not just fiction but fantasy fiction.

As I showed in my post of 4th inst, the εἰς τέτταρας of the dinner drill can only mean ‘four abreast’ which necessarily opens the possibility that the other instances could. It is neither here nor there that no has translated it thus before; that is the nature of new ideas. That it has escaped notice that we are to believe seasoned troops believed a formation 8 deep ‘weak’ is preposterous as is their performing an anastrophe to mend matters if they habitually fought 4 deep.

Greek and Latin both allow words to be ‘understood’, so the fact that enomotiai are mentioned is unimportant. Yes, Xenophon’s parade was in ‘battle-formation’, but that would strengthen the case for them being eight deep, which is by far the most common depth mentioned for fighting troops; in fact this would only leave the four deep cordon of Diodoros as a mention of a depth of four.

As such each mention of eis/ep and a number needs to be evaluated on its own merits as far from monolithic Xenophon’s usage varies.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote on 4 August:

Well, your saying my interpretation is wrong does not make it so either,..

I agree, it is not my saying so, but it is rather the evidence, on balance of probability, which condemns your interpretation – wrong for a number of reasons I’ve expounded earlier.

.. but let’s have a little test of ‘military naivete’; you assert that ‘paragoge’ can be used to describe what was later described as ‘parembole’ but also, when units are involved the movement I have illustrated when deploying (and this is how armies have deployed [moved from column to line] since well before Alte-Fritz improved the speed by deploying on the centre rather than to a flank, sorry, side). One command meaning two different things? Naïve, not naïve?

I don’t just ‘assert this’. Xenophon says so plainly enough in the ‘dinner drill’ [ XA II.3.21]:
“..and when he judged it proper, he gave the order for each lochos to form in fours and thereupon the half-file leaders[pempadarchs] led up by the side[paragon] to form in fours.”

‘paragon’- in tactical context, leading men up beside ( as in deploying from column into line) is not just restricted to inserting half-files, it has a broader meaning, as I have referred to previously – in this passage alone it is used to describe ‘lochoi’ coming up beside one another, and files likewise marching up beside one another. At [XH VII.5.22] it is used to describe Epaminondas at second Mantinea marching successive lochoi up beside one another which becomes his column[embolon] by a right turn. Moreover ‘paragon’ is in no sense a “command”. What Agesilaos says above is not just wrong, but doesn’t even make sense, and he doesn’t seem to understand the correct meaning of ‘paragon’.

As far as I am aware Xenophon never mentions intervals at all, you may impute an interval when he talks of depth, but that is hardly the same thing. The Hellenistic manuals do give an interval for marching but linking it to largly untrained, undrilled milita rather than the well-drilled troops of the Hellenistic Kingdoms is just the leap that Matthews makes. Presumably you find yourself in agreement with him here, shame you felt the need to vilify him.

Xenophon may not mention measurements, but he does for example speak of ‘synaspidou’ =fight side by side; shields together; or in other words close order of 3 feet or so. That there are intervals of the same distance between files is obvious from the fact that rear half-files march up beside front half-files to fill such intervals.
Where do you get the idea that hoplites were ‘untrained’ or ‘undrilled’ ? Moreover, the bulk of Hellenistic infantry were part-timers or militia too.

I most certainly do not agree with Matthew that hoplites performed the drill of the Hellenistic manuals.( His photos of his Sydney group purporting to show hoplites in the manuals formations do no such thing). I do not ‘vilify’ Matthew either – it is far too strong a word, for I don’t defame him or speak evil of him personally, even if I do describe his theories as wrong and bizarre.

Hoplite battles were fought on largely flat plains or meadows for precisely this reason but the same would be true of most battles full-stop, it is easier for most armies to fight on the flat. They were certainly in short supply in Greece which is why we find several battles occurring at the same place.

I think you missed my point – parade grounds and meadows are unemcumbered by obstacles, whilst the few plains of Greece have buildings such as huts, trees, shrubs and bushes, low rock wall enclosures, dry stream beds etc, and moving across such terrain is much easier in open order, and very difficult if not impossible for any distance, for a line in close order.

Now to Cristopher Matthew; you may find it a bizarre theory but it is one that has been tested by reconstructive archaeology and, whilst I have a number of reservations I am quite persuaded by the couched dory method (not so much as to melt down my hoplite armies though!), if you have read what he actually wrote you might be less dismissive.

“tested by reconstructive archaeology” ? This must be a joke, or a ‘wind-up’. All it demonstrates is that it is possible for a hoplite to carry a spear couched. Apart from his Sydney group, the rest of the hoplite re-enactors world who “test by reconstructive archaeology” treat the idea of couched spears, resting in the ‘notches’ between shields with scorn. One can’t fight in that way, limited to a feeble jab forwards like a snooker cue. Try it yourself. Tuck a broomstick under your arm and try to fight with it in that ridiculous position.All the re-enactors of my acquaintance regard such a stance as suicidal. Nor does the iconographic evidence, which overwhelmingly depicts spear overhead stance and rarely any other, support such a view.
If this is not a wind-up, and you are genuinely “quite persuaded by the couched dory method”, then I am sorry that you have such a weak grasp of the mechanics of wielding a spear, and of hoplite warfare generally, if you subscribe to such views.

I have read his theories, at least in the form of his PhD thesis which became his book, and I corresponded personally with him for a year or so, and therefore understand his ideas very well.

But the point he helped me on did not concern his theory of hoplite fighting but linguistics. Now you have, formerly granted my command of Greek to be better than your own, and similarly , though with even greater disparity, is mine less than his. Nor is it polite to emit a diatribe against someone who cannot reply, though I can see it provides a distraction from the linguistic point; I do not, for instance belittle your oft repeated prop of Connelly by pointing out that he always draws pike phalaxes attacking sixteen deep, arms Liby-Phoenician foot with sarissai and gives Seleukid horse armour to Karthaginian cavalry; it is irrelevant as I have already said a name is just that. As to your suggestion of where to hang it, I got the kindle version making that rather impractical (£5 was about all what I was prepared to spend.)

I see. It is OK for you to describe a work as only fit to be hung in a dunny, but not polite for me to follow in your footsteps ? Do I detect a whiff of hypocrisy here ?

Connolly is not my “oft repeated prop”. I mentioned him, along with J.K. Anderson and others as among those who recognise that hoplites fought in half-files in response to an allegation that this was just ‘my’ theory. As to the errors you refer to, I have been pointing these( and others) out since the 1970’s, though in fairness to Connolly, in the case of the Carthaginian pikeman, he was misled by the incorrect translation of ‘longchophoroi’ as ‘pikemen’ in both the Loeb Polybius and the LSJ, and this was corrected by him in “Greece and Rome at War”[1981]. The armoured Carthaginian horse also was dropped from this revised work.

Since you have only the electronic version, guess you'll have to revert to using your left hand, third world fashion !!!!!

And now the part that would have had me splurting my tea if I ever drank the vile brew

Xenophon wrote:The expression "in fours"/epi tettaron in the Anabasis [I.2.15] is exactly the same as "in fours"/eis tettaras in the 'dinner drill'. The final evolution has the 'pempadarchs/half-file leaders bringing the rear half-files up "in fours", so that the formation is in close order of half-files four deep.That somehow this means 8 deep in close order of files as per Christopher Matthew is frankly garbage, and I am amazed that you should clutch at such straws

The first sentence is absolutely right but the rest is woefully wrong; let me walk you through the maths; Xenophon’s fantasy ‘lochos’ consists of 25 men, the lochagos, who stands outside the ranks as we are explicitly told at III 3 xi, this leaves 24 men in two files led by dekadarchs at II 3 xxi but dodekadarchs at III 3 xi (maybe there was an army reform between books more likely the elderly Athenian has forgotten how he officered his ‘lochos’) in any case these twelve men also contain another officer the pempadarch or hexarch, depending which passage one reads. There are no other officers so in the ‘final evolution’ one actually has the four officers four abreast ‘εἰς τέτταρας’ the files are therefore SIX deep so that when the 32 strong enomotiai of the 10,000 stand on a frontage of four ‘ἐπὶ τεττάρων’ they are eight deep. I am sure that Mr Matthew would be as surprised as I am that you cannot count, the lack of Greek we would both excuse I am sure.

Unfortunately for you, “woefully wrong” is more appropriate to this paragraph of yours than mine. It is your maths and counting that is completely wrong from start to finish - as well as your other statements. To begin with, you seem to assume that the formation referred to at the dinner drill [II.3.21] is the same as the organisation he gives the fictional Cyrus, which it is not.[ see XC II.1.23-25.] In the former, Xenophon does not give numbers for the unit, whose structure works for both files of 8 and files of 12 for example, as I pointed out earlier. The Taxis consists of four lochoi, each of two files, and hence 4 half-files. The implication is that the ‘lochos’ here consists of 16, who end up “in fours/eis tettaras” i.e. four deep ( see my diagram page 1) – it is just co-incidence that this formation is 4x4, and hence also 4 abreast. In every other example ( see my previous post) “in fours/eights” refers to depth, because it is a whole phalanx, or ‘battle array’ for a significant part of it that forms “in fours/eights” and hence can’t mean abreast. The organisation Xenophon gives to his fictional Cyrus’ “New Model Army” is a hybrid, based on the real Persian army’s decimal organisation but adding in Greek features such as ‘lochoi’ and half-files. Its taxis/company is 100 strong divided into two lochoi of 50 ( not four), and he refers to files of 12, like the Spartan organisation.

Moreover, neither of these ‘orbats’ has a lochos of 25, and I don’t know where you get this from, but it is clearly wrong. When I was a computer programmer we had a saying “GIGO”/ garbage in, garbage out meaning if you start with incorrect or bad data no matter what you do, you won’t get a correct or good result. We need consider these erroneous calculations no further.
That we are told that the lochagoi stood outside the ranks at III.3.11 is also incorrect. What we are told is that ALL the officers ( from General to lochagos) are exempt from enrolment/'katalegesquai' in the regular regiments, so that they can be detached as staff officers, messengers etc, and that in their absence the file leaders/dodekadarchs and half-file leaders/hecadarchs kept proper order.

It is an incorrect assumption that the “10,000” were organised into ‘enomotia’ of 32, for nowhere does Xenophon say this. (It is likely that the different contingents had their own organisations – certainly at this time when they first came together). Nor does ‘epi tettaron’/in fours translate as “frontage of four” – a bad translation. Moreover, it is not individual enomotia or other sub-units that are “in fours”/epi tettaron, but the whole array/battle-line [taxqhnai;etaxqhsan] which is in fours, hence cannot mean abreast, but must mean deep. ( digression: at one point in the Anabasis Xenophon refers to a rearguard of 600 men being organised into lochoi of 100; 2 pentekostyes of 50, each consisting of 2 enomotia [XA III.4.21] )

You seem to be hoist on your own petard. Unlike you I make no gratuitous, insulting remarks about ability to count ( or read and comprehend for that matter) and I trust that in the circumstances you will have the grace to apologise. Insulting, disrespectful personal remarks should have no place here on Pothos.

Xenophon wrote:Why should the fact that these are Spartan mercenaries rather than Lakedaemonians preclude them from forming 12 deep, if the occasion demanded, especially as this seems to be the Spartan norm at this time ? For whatever reason, they decided that 8 deep ( in open formation most likely) was "weak" against a "mass" – presumably deep like a Theban one, even if not actual column/embolon formation, and chose to double their depth by means of an 'anastrophe'/folding back.

How units form is dependent upon there structure, forming eight deep would allow sixteen or even four maybe, but twelve would be a bastard number of a file and a half, since we only hear of mercenaries eight deep and any unit twelve deep only once, the Spartans at Leuktra, in action and only in the Lak Pol in theory, before the theorists lists, it is reasonable to assume that troops arrayed eight deep, according to you or four deep according to me lacked the capacity to form twelve deep. Simples!

I disagree. It would not be difficult to ‘split’ into their half-files every third file and add them to files one and two. All the more so when numbers would never be exactly ‘paper’ strengths. Simples !

Have you become a convert to the theory of depth?? According to you the Spartans at Leuktra fought a 25 deep formation of hoplites only six deep with no problem despite having been disrupted by their own cavalry; the Athenians faced the similarly deep Thebans four deep at Delion with no problem until the Theban cavalry appeared to their rear, in fact most battles were fought four deep; yet these mercenaries, no strangers to hoplite warfare, are frightened into a sixteen deep open order formation by a crowd exiting a gate rather than inserting their ‘rear half files’ to form the standard fighting depth and density of hoplite warfare, is that a straw I see before thee..?

As you point out below, it was the extreme end of the line which was attacked, possibly in flank. The shortening of this end of the line may have been because of the danger of an outflanking attck on an exposed extreme end, and the purpose of the ‘anastrophe’ may have been to shorten the line rather than increase fighting depth – a possibility you don’t consider.

I know what ‘anastrophe is and posted Brownson’s definition myself; no one has mentioned the doubling method so seems that straw is a strawman.

It would seem you do not, if you think it was done by ‘doubling’ and then ‘compacting’ as per Aelian [29 and 33 Devine] – which you did indeed mention, and with which both Paralus and I disagreed:

Agesilaos wrote 31 July:
“Were this a simple (?) counter-march it is hard to see the purpose, it is more likely that alternate files counter-march to the rear of those halting to deepen the line and make it stronger, the files would presumably close-up after doubling their depth, just like the Macedonian phalanx at Kynoskephalai.”

ἄλλοι δ᾽ ἐκδραμόντες καθ᾽ ἑτέρας πύλας ἐπιτίθενται ἁθρόοι τοῖς ἐσχάτοις: [21] οἱ δ᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀκτὼ τεταγμένοι, ἀσθενὲς νομίσαντες τὸ ἄκρον τῆς φάλαγγος ἔχειν, ἀναστρέφειν ἐπειρῶντο.


The Greek is actually quite clear the ‘hoi’ who are described as ep okto are the same as ‘tois eschatois’ the extreme of the line which thought themselves weak. Since it is not the whole army that is referred to your point falls at the first hurdle, writhes and is put out of its misery!

Since I never said that it was the whole army but rather used Xenophon’s exact words “ battle array/tagmenatoi” ( he doesn’t tell us what fraction of the left attempted anastrophe) it is this false flimsy argument which falls flat on its face.

Xenophon wrote:Any hypothesis which leaves out significant parts of the evidence, as Agesilaos does here, is generally incorrect.

And those that rely on bad translation, faulty maths and bluster?

That would appear to be you!
Bad translation ( ‘paragoge’ as a command and ‘epi tettaron’ as frontage of four for example); faulty maths ( miscounting the lochoi and files and assuming two different orbats were the same, the assumed 25 strong lochos and the subsequent erroneous calculations); and bluster ( the obvious false accusations, and the insulting remarks about inability to count )

[Xenophon]

Nikas wrote Tue 5 AUG:

By no means am I getting involved in this debate, I share this simply as somewhat interesting in light of the subject(s) at hand:

Good to see another voice here, and it raises an interesting matter. The reason those "Technike Tactike"/manuals, especially Aelian, survive today is thanks to Byzantine interest in them.

The Byzantines annotated and added to the original Aelian, and used this manual directly. Between circa 500 AD and 1100 AD there followed no less than 13 treatises and military pamphlets ( that we know of), all tracing their roots back to Aelian mostly, but one or two to Arrian, and each often incorporating material from those before.

*Pecheis: 46.8 cm. Another pechys was an agricultural measure of 62.46 cm

The Pechus, or cubit varied considerably over time and place. The likely Pechus/cubit used in classical/Hellenistic times was 491.5 mm/19.6 inches ( taken from the Salamis metrological relief )

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote Tues Aug 5;

‘Lack of argument’ is a bit rich coming from someone who rarely posts references, and who can post such things as calling Xenophon an ‘arch laconophile’ and ‘Theban hater’ without a trace of argument or evidence !

I reject that. Aside from the very few 'embedded' quotes (to avoid yet another 'quote box') I religiously reference sources and quote the poster. Your blanket assertion that I am "someone who rarely posts references" is utterly incorrect.

If you say so. I am mindful that as recently as 31 July, I had cause to bemoan the fact that you posted a number of quotations from me without a single reference, causing considerable inconvenience.

I take it, then, that you are recanting your statement that "Xenophon’s account of Leuctra was clearly almost contemporary with the event"? That would be wise for I believe it to be flat wrong.

No, not necessarily recanting. We simply do not know, and cannot tell, exactly when it was composed, or when the original notes or whatever he used were composed, nor do we know what his source(s) for Leuktra actually was. We can only surmise.

This digression is irrelevent to the point anyway, which is that Xenophon's failure to name Epaminondas and Pelopidas in connection to Leuktra does not make him a 'Theban hater', any more than his failure to name the Spartan commanders/polemarchs after the death of Kleombrotus makes him a 'Spartan hater', especially in the light of what he later says about them.

Oh, and for the record ( again!!) Xenophon does not say that Pelopidas, or any of the other ambassadors who went to the Great King were "medising". That word and its connotations are purely Paralus'.

Xenophon was not particularly enamoured of the men whose victory at Leuktra and subsequent 'destruction' of the 'Spartan Peloponnese' robbed him of his estates in Skillous.

This is just surmise. We don't know what Xenophon thought in this regard, or whom he might have blamed. Considering that he thought that the Thebans were in the right, and Sparta in the wrong, he might just as well have blamed the Spartans for his loss.

[Paralus]

Paralus wrote Tues Aug 5;

‘Lack of argument’ is a bit rich coming from someone who rarely posts references, and who can post such things as calling Xenophon an ‘arch laconophile’ and ‘Theban hater’ without a trace of argument or evidence !

I reject that. Aside from the very few 'embedded' quotes (to avoid yet another 'quote box') I religiously reference sources and quote the poster. Your blanket assertion that I am "someone who rarely posts references" is utterly incorrect.

If you say so. I am mindful that as recently as 31 July, I had cause to bemoan the fact that you posted a number of quotations from me without a single reference, causing considerable inconvenience.

Firstly, I do say so. Secondly, this really is staring to get beyond the pale. Were I to be similarly as ‘precious’ I might demand to know just which of your near dozen posts of July 31st you refer to. I am not and was happy enough to locate same myself – without the somewhat sanctimonious complaint. The post which so discombobulated you was this one. As can be seen, the “number of quotations” was actually two: one a single sentence and the other a phrase. They were ‘embedded’ so as not to disrupt the paragraph with quotation boxes. As I recall, the post was dismissed as a ‘diatribe’ wherein I took these quotes “out of context” so as to assign “them meanings they never had”. It is very difficult to see just whatever other meanings they could ever have had.

I am mindful that someone who would lecture on ‘proper form’ should check for houses of glass before so lecturing:

Oh, and its a bit rich accusing me of making 'rhetorical flourishes when you use expressions such as "and head home shields between legs"

The phrase in quotation marks is mine and, I note, unreferenced!! Worse still, the accusation attributed to me was not made by me at all. Once again, “let he who has not…”

Whilst on matters of ‘form’…

On the use of the two different terms by Polybios, I can only agree with Aegesilaos.....

“Well he would say that wouldn’t he?” To test Paralus’ objectivity, count the number of times he attacks my posts, not just in this thread but overall, against attacks on Agesilaos.

It would seem that should one disagree with you and concomitantly agree with another indicates a paucity of any objectivity. Fascinating.

[Paralus]

This digression is irrelevent to the point anyway, which is that Xenophon's failure to name Epaminondas and Pelopidas in connection to Leuktra does not make him a 'Theban hater', any more than his failure to name the Spartan commanders/polemarchs after the death of Kleombrotus makes him a 'Spartan hater', especially in the light of what he later says about them.

Well, it was not me who introduced this digression which is "irrelevent (sic) to the point". It was yourself who, in a lengthy post, suggested that Xenophon wrote his account of the battle not long after the battle later claiming that "Xenophon’s account of Leuctra was clearly almost contemporary with the event". It was clearly relevant to you at the time but if a discussion of the evidence relating to that claim is now irrelevant then so too, I'm afraid, is your original claim.

[agesilaos]

Unfortunately for you, “woefully wrong” is more appropriate to this paragraph of yours than mine. It is your maths and counting that is completely wrong from start to finish - as well as your other statements. To begin with, you seem to assume that the formation referred to at the dinner drill [II.3.21] is the same as the organisation he gives the fictional Cyrus, which it is not.[ see XC II.1.23-25.] In the former, Xenophon does not give numbers for the unit, whose structure works for both files of 8 and files of 12 for example, as I pointed out earlier. The Taxis consists of four lochoi, each of two files, and hence 4 half-files. The implication is that the ‘lochos’ here consists of 16, who end up “in fours/eis tettaras” i.e. four deep ( see my diagram page 1) – it is just co-incidence that this formation is 4x4, and hence also 4 abreast. In every other example ( see my previous post) “in fours/eights” refers to depth, because it is a whole phalanx, or ‘battle array’ for a significant part of it that forms “in fours/eights” and hence can’t mean abreast. The organisation Xenophon gives to his fictional Cyrus’ “New Model Army” is a hybrid, based on the real Persian army’s decimal organisation but adding in Greek features such as ‘lochoi’ and half-files. Its taxis/company is 100 strong divided into two lochoi of 50 ( not four), and he refers to files of 12, like the Spartan organisation.

Moreover, neither of these ‘orbats’ has a lochos of 25, and I don’t know where you get this from, but it is clearly wrong. When I was a computer programmer we had a saying “GIGO”/ garbage in, garbage out meaning if you start with incorrect or bad data no matter what you do, you won’t get a correct or good result. We need consider these erroneous calculations no further.

Once again with ‘the implication’, the Greek is clear that pempadarchs command five men and dekadarchs ten, the only variance is whether the officers are to be included in the count. Xenophon clears up his usage at II 4 iv

, παρήγγειλε τῷ πρώτῳ ταξιάρχῳ τὴν τάξιν εἰς δώδεκα τάττειν βάθος, τοὺς δὲ δωδεκάρχους ἐν μετώπῳ καθιστάναι
he ordered the first taxiarch to draw up his taxis twelve deep, while the dodekadarchs were to take their places on the front line

So when he says a commander of twelve he means a commander of twelve including the officer, it is not some generic term for ‘file-leader’, which no Greek author uses as such and it certainly does not mean a commander of eight. and at II 4 ii

ἐν ὀλίγῳ δὲ χρόνῳ ἐγένοντο τὸ μὲν μέτωπον ἐπὶ τριακοσίων （τοσοῦτοι γὰρ ἦσαν οἱ ταξίαρχοι）, τὸ δὲ βάθος ἐφ᾽ ἑκατόν.
in a little while they were three hundred abreast on the front line, for that was the number of the captains, and a hundred men deep. Which must mean four groups of 25, each of two dodekadarchs and a lochagos, just like the organisation at the dinner drill only with dodekadarchs and hexarchs replacing dekadarchs and pempadarchs.

Now let’s look ‘holistically’ at the dinner drill passage; Kyros sees a taxiarch bringing his taxis along by the river in single file (ἐφ᾽ ἑνός) he then orders the lochoi to come up into line one at a time so that the four lochagoi form the front rank, he then orders the lochoi to form into two files (παρηγγύησεν εἰς δύο ἄγειν τὸν λόχον:) bringing the dekadarchs into the front rank so that the lochoi are now ten deep with the lochagos out in front of the two dekadarchoi. The next evolution forms the lochoi εἰς τέτταρας, the same phraseology as each previous evolution and ending with the pempadarchoi joining the front rank so that the lochoi are now five deep. The contextual picture is clear as are the numbers. εἰς τέτταρας here clearly means in four files. Can you see that yet? If not your credibility may be fatally weakened.

[Paralus]

Oh, and for the record ( again!!) Xenophon does not say that Pelopidas, or any of the other ambassadors who went to the Great King were "medising". That word and its connotations are purely Paralus'.

The Xenophontic scales are firmly in place. Of course Xenophon presents the Thebans and Pelopidas as 'Medising'. The first time the Theban general and statesman is named he is seen as obsequiously currying favour with the Great King, on behalf of Thebes, to gain Persian backing for hegemony in Greece. What has not been related is the preface Xenophon gives to Pelopidas' mission:

The Thebans had been constantly scheming about how they might become the leaders of all Greece, and now decided that they might secure some advantage with the Persian King if they sent ambassadors to him. (7.1.33)

This is hardly anything but Medising: the Thebans schemed for hegemony of Greece and sought the help of the Great King in that scheming. Pelopidas is even presented as using Thebes' past Medising as an argument. Not a word from Xenophon that this was precisely what Sparta had done in 386. Again, we are not treated to a single syllable to indicate just what high-minded and righteous arguments Antalkidas had deployed to swing the Persian King behind Sparta's scheming at continued hegemony. Not a word. Yet when Thebes takes her turn we are treated to 'box and dice'.

Even David Thomas, not one for being overly critical of Xenophon's biases, sees that this "can hardly be a coincidence" (Introduction to the Landmark Hellenika, xlvii). It is, in fact, the communis opinio. Then again, as we have seen, one man's communis opinio is another man's 'modern trope'.

[agesilaos]

Nor should one omit, the non appearence of the battle of Tegyra and even the loss of Messenia. it is no plea in mitigation that the polemarchs at Leuktra are not named, it is generally Xenophon's way not to name Spartan failures, viz the hipparch at the Lechaion debacle; I would agree with our Xenophon, however, that it is eay to exaggerate this bias, I see petulance, rather than hatred, the latter is Agesilaos' failing! Ultimately, a large part of the cause of the Spartan failure as hegemon. I agree wholeheartedly with Paralus that the account of Leuktra is far from contemporary, even if Xenophon had made some contemporary notes are we to believe he set them in aspic to be the only influence on his later account? when one contrasts the Boeotian narrative of Plutarch and the Lakonian of Xenophon I find the Boeotian more plausible, one should not conflate the two; either the Spartan line was disrupted by the cavalry defeat or it was caught trying to execute a manouevre that failed because, like Mnasippos' troops they were caught out by a rapid advance, in this case by the Hieros Lochos under Pelopidas. The Kymaian narrative of Ephoros represented by Diodoros I would consign to dunny fodder, so much is plain wrong that cherry-picking details has to be bad practice historiographically speaking.

On the dunny scenario, I ws not condemning the work only the translation, within the context of arguments here, but that probably did not come across (I have frequently commented that, in general, the needs of translation and those of ant f***ing, as Hiphys and the dutch apparently put it, ie detailed examination of specific issues, are not complementary and frequently antithetical). I don't mind that you disagree with Matthew, but despite what you have said about reading his thesis; and that is how his book reads with the constant repetition of his 'novel findings': you don't seem to have grasped the main issue with the overarm strike, so common in vase painting, which is that the point of balance for a dory is not central but much further to the rear, as is depicted in other paintings; certainly not a point to judged by wielding a broomstick. My own experimental worth was rendered null by a road accident almost four years ago when I succeeded in handing of an oncoming VW at the expense of my elbow, fortunately due to the coincidence of England's only performance (against sub-standard opposition) in the Rugby World Cup at seven in the morning and Karaoke night, both at my local, I was well anaesthetised, paraliterally, a local anaesthetic!

[Paralus]

Nor should one omit, the non appearence of the battle of Tegyra and even the loss of Messenia. it is no plea in mitigation that the polemarchs at Leuktra are not named, it is generally Xenophon's way not to name Spartan failures, viz the hipparch at the Lechaion debacle; I would agree with our Xenophon, however, that it is eay to exaggerate this bias, I see petulance, rather than hatred, the latter is Agesilaos' failing! Ultimately, a large part of the cause of the Spartan failure as hegemon.

Yes, and 'hate' is too strong a word - though not for Xenophon's hero Agesilaos. For Xenophon it was more than 'petulance' in my view. As I've said, he has no 'love' for the men who ended Spartan rule: either those supposed "fire breathers" who had brought Sparta low (7.5.12) or those who led them. That said, Xenophon could well have included other stories that show Thebes in a less than glorious glow such as the destruction of Orchomenus (though this will have involved introducing a very statesmanlike Epaminondas successfully arguing for clemency and inclusion). That he is biased toward Sparta is not questioned. That he is biased against Thebes is not either (aside from here). His criticisms of Sparta almost always come down to individuals; the whole - the Spartans - are almost always on the good side of the ledger. Spartan acts such as the dismembering of Mantiniea and the restructure of Phleious for example - both in flagrant contravention of the just signed King's Peace - are justified. The peace of Antalkidas (as Xenophon calls it) is an alliance between Sparta and Persia which is all to the common good (whereas the Thebans are 'scheming' for control of Greece via the King's auspices). Contravening the same in 371 though brings down the righteous anger of the 'divinity' at Leuktra and the resultant defeat. The notes of bias against Thebes are more general: the above 'fire eaters'; the cowards of Nemea who delayed until they got the left of the line and the 'Medising' already mentioned come to mind. Even with all that, I go back to what I wrote on the defunct "Leuktra" thread:

Now, before anything else is written, such a critique does not ipso facto mean that Xenophon is not 'the best' continuous narrative source for the period; he is that if only for the reason that he is the fullest (in this regard it is a pity that "P" - the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia - has not survived). Like every other source, Xenophon's biases must be considered when reading his work. Whilst his attitude to Thebes and Sparta is not quite to be equated with Fox News' attitude to Democrats and Republicans in the modern US, he is not that far removed to see the metaphor as completely inapt. It is worth considering what future historians would make of latter twentieth century US politics if the only source available was Fox News. As it is we do have other sources available to run a 'check' on Xenophon.

[agesilaos]

I would agree with the caveat that the sources by which we may counter Xenophon's bias and fill his gaps are themselves quite uneven; Diodoros, almost certainly based upon Ephoros makes such a nonsense of Leuktra that it is difficult to credit data he gives unless it is elsewhere attested, which renders him something of a spare source at a wedding, Pausanias' little snippets are travelogue and not necessarily chosen for accuracy rather than a good story, and Plutarch is looking for tales that illuminate either a Moral or character trait, Nepos is not particularly full of new data. Then there are the contemporary orators who suffer from politicians' usual love of truth; the loss of the Hellenika Oxyrhinca is indeed to be lamented, judging from its remaining fragments especially the dissection of Theban politics, which forms the central chapter of Hamilton's 'Sparta's Bitter Victories'.

[Paralus]

Diodorus was likely on some good Sicilian red when writing up Leuktra. Either that or Ephorus was. Although it reads as a mess, he preserves details that are confirmed elsewhere - most importantly the oblique line and stacked wing (which is found in the Plutarchan tradition as well - Pel. 23.1; Mor. 282E ) and the fierce fight about Kleombrotos (alive and dead). These descriptions are not his usual fare although 'Diodorisms' still make their appearance ("the battle was evenly poised"; "it was uncertain which way the scales of victory inclined"). Diodorus (15.52.2-7 & 53.4) reports the negative omens for Thebes that are also found in the Plutarchan tradition (Mor. 192F & 774D; cf Pel. 22.1-4 & Dem. 20.1). Thus I'd be careful which parts to hang from the dunny wall.

Were we left only with Xenophon not a word will have found its way down the ages about the oblique advance of a refused line and all the omens prior to the battle regarding Thebes will have been favourable just as they were unfavourable to Sparta. We will have been left with the impression that, the Theban depth aside, this was a typical hoplite battle of opposed lines and that, as far as Sparta was concerned, everything went against her as the 'divinity' so clearly willed.

[agesilaos]

I think the blame must lie at Ephoros' door and yes there are elements that appear in all the traditions, notably the omens which were set in stone early, my point would be that whilst not all of Diodoros/Ephoros is trope and fiction it would be unwise to trust a detail found in him alone, rendering him somewhat redundant; generally if the broad strokes are of to tha side of the canvas and all over the light switch the detail work is unlikely to be of superior quality.

As I have been reading the Kyrou Paidaia (Kyrotedia might be more appropriate) I found this at IV 1 viii

The Assyrians, on the other hand, inasmuch as they had lost their general and with him nearly all their best men, were all disheartened, and many of them even ran away from the camp in the course of the night. And when Croesus and the rest of their allies saw this, they too lost heart; for the whole situation was desperate; but what caused the greatest despondency in all was the fact that the leading contingent of the army had become thoroughly demoralized. Thus dispirited, then, they quitted their camp and departed under cover of the night.

Ring any bells? But Xenophon does not equate the Assyrians with the Spartans surely?! IV 2 i

While Cyrus was thus occupied, messengers came as if providentially from the Hyrcanians. Now the Hyrcanians are neighbours of the Assyrians; they are not a large nation; and for that reason they also were subjects of the Assyrians. Even then they had a reputation for being good horsemen, and they have that reputation still. For this reason the Assyrians used to employ them as the Spartans do the Sciritae, sparing them neither in hardships nor in dangers. And on that particular occasion they were ordered to bring up the rear (they were cavalrymen about a thousand strong), in order that, if any danger should threaten from behind, they might have to bear the brunt of it instead of the Assyrians.

Seems explicit enough, looks like the old guy was getting bitter in his old age; Miller has translated ἐχρῶντο here as the present tense when it applies to the Spartans but it should also be the imperfect 'used to', so the passage was written after the loss of Skiritis.

[Paralus]

Yes, I agree that given the state of the overall account (the two spartan armies and kings) that testis unis testis nullis should likely apply. Thus the 4,000 dead Spartans is attached to the dunny wall. Pausanias too should be approached with caution and notion that he is gutting Plutarch's Epaminondas is somewhat dangerous. Even so, there are corroborative elements in that account which marry up with the others - including Xenophon's - such as 9.13.12:

Some of the allies took up no dead at all, as not a man of them had fallen; others had but slight loss to report. So when the Lacedaemonians proceeded to bury their own, it was at once proved that the fallen were Spartans.

This too speaks to the oblique advance of a refused line. We might argue over the notice that the allies were instructed to collect their dead first to keep the Spartans from their practice of hiding their dead (something Thukydides reports at Mantinea 5.74.1-3) but the Thebans had full control of the field and there is no real reason to doubt it.