8/6/2019 1.8.8-11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/188-11 1/2

1.8.8-11

Approach of the enemy force

“καταφανε ῖς ἦσαν οἱ πολέμιοι : ἡ νίκα δὲ δείλη ἐγίγνετο, ἐφάνη κονιορτὸς ὥσπερ

 νεφέλη λευκή, χρόνῳ δὲ συχνῷ ὕστερον ὥσπερ μελανία τις ἐ ν τῷ πεδί ῳ ἐπ ὶ πολύ. ὅτε 

δὲ ἐγγύτερον ἐγίγνοντο, τάχα δὴ κα ὶ χαλκός τις ἤστραπτε κα ὶ λόγχαι κα ὶ αἱ τάξεις 

καταφανε ῖς ἐγίγνοντο”: Anthon (p.313) spoke about “spirited nature of description” andeven Lendle ( p.????) has commented Xenophon’s vividness.“ἐ ν τῷ πεδί ῳ”:

“ἐπ ὶ πολύ “: Thucydides, 2.79.6; Anabasis, 4.2.13

“τάχα δὴ κα ὶ χαλκός τις ἤστραπτε”: Euripides, Phoenissae, ln.110-111: “κατάχαλκον 

ἅπαν πεδίον ἀστράπτει ”; Cyropaedia, 6.4.1. Kelsey & Zenos commented on the force of 

the imperfect (p.245).“καταφανε ῖς ἦσαν-ἐφάνη κονιορτὸς-καταφανε ῖς ἐγίγνοντο”: impressive alliterations of 

κ, φ. The purpose is obviously to make clear that the impression of the approaching

enemy was clearly (φανερώς) devastating.

“λευκοθώρακες”: Homer, Iliad , 2.529: “λινοθώρηξ”

“Αἰγύπτιοι ”: not the people from Egypt but from Larissa and Cyllene, who were calledEgyptians (Cyropaedia, 7.1.45: “and the Egyptians who then stayed in the country have

continued loyal subjects to the king even unto this day; and Cyrus gave them cities, some

in the interior, which even to this day are called Egyptian cities, and besides these Larissa

and Cyllene near Cyme on the coast; and their descendants dwell there even unto thisday”, trans. by W. Miller). Anthon (p.314), Zeune (p.70), Owen (p.265), Kelsey & Zenos

(p.245) agreed on this.

“κατὰ ἔθνη”: Herodotus, 7.60.3; 7.10.1.

“ἐ ν πλαισί ῳ πλήρει ”: Anabasis, 3.4.19: “πλαίσιον ἰσόπλευρον”; Anabasis, 3.2.36:

“Hence it will be safer, perhaps, for us to march with the hoplites formed into a hollowsquare” trans. by C. Brownson; Arrian, Tactica, 29.7; Thucydides, 6.67.1. The difference

 between πλαίσιον and πλινθίον is that the former is an oblong, the latter a square(Cleveland, p.247).

“ἅρματα … τὰ δὴ δρεπανηφόρα καλούμενα”: even though they were not successfully

used in Kunaxa, we find them again in Daskylion in 395 BCE ( Hellenica, 4.1.17-19).

Xenophon’s description of Cyrus’ the Great scythed chariots is based on the real chariots

of Cyrus the Younger (Head,p.47). Diodorus, 17.53 described the chariots at Gaugamela,

thus: “From each of these there projected out beyond the trace horses scythes three spanslong, attached to the yoke, and presenting their cutting edges to the front. At the axle

housings there were two more scythes pointing straight out with their cutting edges

turned to the front like the others, but longer and broader. Curved blades were fitted tothe ends of these (trans. by C.H. Oldfather). Xenophon described the decline of these

chariots at the end of Cyropaedia, as a result of unskilled and underpaid drivers. Whenlater, Darius III attempted to use them against Alexander the Makedon in the battle of Gaugamela, which we mentioned just above, he was completely unsuccessful, due to the

fact that Alexander was experienced in confronting this military technique - also fought

chariots in Trace (Farrokh, p.103). What Alexander did in Gaugamela, was the same thatKlearchos did in Kunaxa. “This collective action” (S. Anglim, Rob S. Rice, Phyllis G.

Jestice, S.M. Rusch, J. Serrati, p.36) is a sign of a well trained and disciplined army.

8/6/2019 1.8.8-11

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/188-11 2/2

On the scythed chariots, Rivet (p.130) has provided a short list of the instances where

they are reported, even though Anabasis,1.8.10 is not included. In all these cases, the

effectiveness of the chariots is questionable (Glover, p.5f). A very interesting tacticagainst them, was introduced by Sulla, who went one step further, at Chaeroneia: he

attacked the enemy in close country, restricting the chariots’ run and preventing them

from getting up speed (Glover, p.7). In the most recent scholarship, Nefiodkin’s article“On the origin of the scythed chariots” is of great interest. His argumentation is very

convincing [his note on Aeschylus’ reference to chariots ( Persians, ln.45-47), is unique

(p.374)]. His conclusion is that the origin of this invention can be traced back in the 460sBCE, when the Persians were preparing themselves in order to fight another war against

the Greeks (p.378).

“τὰς τάξεις”: Cyropaedia, 8.5.7: “τῶ ν στρατιωτικ ῶ ν φύλων”.

“ἐλ ῶ ντα κα ὶ διακόψοντα”:

“οὐ γὰρ κραυγῇ ἀλλ ὰ σιγῇ”: Plutarch, Artoxerxes, 7.3: “by leading his [Artaxerxes]

forces up slowly and in silence”, trans. by B. Perrin.

“ὡς ἁ νυστὸ ν”: ὡς  without superlative

“ἡσυχ ῇ”: in Attic instead of the poetic ἡσύχως. Kelsey & Zenos (p.246) referred to the battles of Plataea, Issus and Arbela, in which the Persians advanced with war-cries. Sameas richter (p.100). Lendle1995 (p.????) made the very interesting note that this was the

case just before the final engagement and not during the process of approaching the

enemy.“ἐ ν ἴ σῳ κα ὶ βραδέως”: Cyropaedia, 7.1.8: “ἡγοῦ τῷ πεζῷ ἠρέμα …, ἐ ν ἴ σῳ τούτῳ τὸ ἱππικ ὸ ν ἔχων συμπαρέπου”.

Rivet, A., L., F., A Note on Scythed Chariots, Antiquity, 53, pp.130-132

Glover, R., F., Some Curiosities of Ancient Warfare, Greece and Rome, Vol. XIX, No.55,

January 1950, pp.1-9 Nefiodkin, Al., K., On the Origin of the Scythed Chariots, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte

Geschichte, Bd.53, H.3(2004), pp.369-378Farrokh, K., Shadows in the Dessert: Ancient Persia at War , Osprey Publishing, 2007