DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 1 Why Is Xenophon “Themistogen Ēs Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix 1 Why Is Xenophon “Themistogen Ēs Of APPENDIX 1 WHY IS XENOPHON “THEMISTOGENĒ S OF SYRACUSE”? n the first two books of the Hellenika , Xenophon describes the end of Ithe Peloponnesian War, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants in Athens which followed the city’s defeat, and the civil war that eventually engulfed it. At the beginning of book three, he turns to the postwar period, beginning with the campaign of Cyrus against King Artaxerxes: How Cyrus gathered an army and with it marched up country against his brother, and how the battle took place, and how he died, and how after this the Hellenes came safely back to the sea, has been written by Themistogen ē s of Syracuse. (3.1.2) The reference to “Themistogenē s of Syracuse” in this passage has puzzled generations of scholars. 1 Nothing is known about Themistogenē s or his putative book. No mention of him occurs anywhere outside the pages of Xenophon. 2 Indeed, as early as the first century AD, Plutarch sur- mises that “Themistogen ē s” is a pseudonym for “Xenophon.” 3 Today, 1 For a sample of the explanations of “Themistogen ē s” that have been adduced in more recent times, see Dillery (1998) pp. 6–8; Flower (2012) pp. 53–55; H ø eg (1950); MacLaren (1934); Masqueray (1930) pp. 3–5; Prentice (1947); Rood (2005) p. xix; Strauss (1983) p. 106. To my knowledge, the mystery has never been solved. Yet to Leo Strauss belongs the substantial merit of having indicated that “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse” and the anonymous Syracusan of the Symposium are somehow the same person—Xenophon (1972, p. 178). 2 There is however a brief reference to Themistogen ē s in the Suidas, apparently derived from the Hellenika passage. See Maclaren (1934) p. 241. 3 Plutarch (1936) 345e. Maclaren (1934) states: “To say the least, if there ever were a real Themistogenes and an Anabasis written by him, he had become such an obscure figure by the end of the first century after Christ that a well educated, widely read man like Plutarch 302 APPENDIX 1 this identification is widely accepted and is, I believe, correct. Indeed the notion that Xenophon could have authored a masterpiece like the Anabasis only to refer his readers (in the Hellenika ) to an alternative and obscure account is altogether implausible. Nor can we take refuge in the notion that the Anabasis was perhaps not yet written or published when the Hellenika was given to the public, thus preventing Xenophon from referring to it in the Hellenika . The Hellenika is a late work, ending with an account of the battle of Mantinea (362 BC ). Since Xenophon was in his twenties or early thirties when he joined Cyrus (401 BC ), he would have had to be in his sixties or early seventies when the Hellenika was completed and published (i.e., sometime after 362 BC ). It is unlikely that he waited forty years or more to write and publish his Anabasis , as the notion in question forces us to assume.4 The freshness and vivid- ness of the work militates against such a late composition. The Anabasis was almost certainly written and published before—and, in any case, not after—the Hellenika . We must therefore accept that “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse” is a pseud- onym for “Xenophon of Athens.” But this conclusion only leads to a more difficult problem: Why does Xenophon use a pseudonym at all? Why not say in the Hellenika that the Anabasis has been written by “Xenophon of Athens”? Nothing could have been simpler. In Antiquity, Plutarch surmised that Xenophon used a pseudonym to give greater credibil- ity to the account of his deeds by making it appear as if he had writ- ten about someone else. But this explanation is clearly unsatisfactory. Anyone can see that the Anabasis was written by Xenophon. The work contains details about his thoughts and dreams, his hopes and fears, his private deliberations, his domestic life after the expedition, and so on. No one could have written the book except for Xenophon. The pseudonym “Themistogenē s” does not give greater credibility to the account of his deeds, and neither does the fact that he writes about himself in the third person, a practice which does not exclude his occasional use of the first person in any case (1.2.5, 1.9.22, 1.9.28, 2.3.1; also 2.6.6). Besides, the pseudonym occurs only in the Hellenika . Yet the putative aim ascribed to it would have been more effectively served had the pseudonym been used in the Anabasis . As one scholar nicely puts it, “There is something odd in did not know of his existence. It seems unthinkable that a companion piece to Xenophon’s famous account of the exploits of the Ten Thousand could have suffered such an eclipse at so early a date” (p. 242). 4 To avoid this difficulty, some scholars hypothesize that the Hellenika was published in two distinct phases, the first phase involving the first two books and the beginning of the third, and the second phase the rest of the work. This hypothesis is based on literary dif- ferences between these two sections of text. But it is otherwise unsupported. APPENDIX 1 303 the argument that Xenophon employed a pseudonym to give the account of his achievements greater plausibility but then did not actually include that pseudonym in the text of the Anabasis itself.” 5 The explanation of Themistogen ē s lies elsewhere. Let me try to think through this age-old puzzle, beginning with the obvious. By the time Xenophon published the Anabasis he was an exile. 6 Hence, he would presumably have had to write in book three of the Hellenika that the Anabasis had been written by “Xenophon, the Athenian exile” had he sought to present himself accurately to the public. Was he perhaps reluctant to place the Anabasis under the cloud of his exile? Did he wish to avoid prejudicing his readers? This is part of the explanation of the use of the pseudonym, I believe. Xenophon wished to deemphasize his exile. Yet we cannot rest satisfied with this explanation insofar as it remains open to a powerful objec- tion. For Thucydides, too, was an exile from Athens when he wrote the Peloponnesian War (5.26.5). Yet he describes himself in the first line of the work, and again later on, as “Thucydides the Athenian” (1.1.1, 5.26.1). What prevented Xenophon from doing the same? Let us consider the context of the reference to Themistogen ē s in the Hellenika . We have seen that the first two books of the work describe the end of the Peloponnesian War, the rule of the Thirty Tyrants, and the civil war in Athens. Xenophon makes it perfectly clear that the Athenians suf- fered grievously during this period. For several months they were block- aded by land and sea by the Lacedaemonians before capitulating. Scores of people actually died of starvation during the siege. 7 Afterward, the Long Walls were razed and the Lacedaemonians helped such shady characters as Kritias and Charmides set up the regime of the Thirty. Many inno- cent Athenians were murdered by these tyrannical rulers. 8 The ensuing civil war brought on yet more suffering. Now, Sparta’s victory in the Peloponnesian War was made possible by the financial backing of Cyrus. 9 The Lacedaemonians themselves will acknowledge this after the war. 10 Hence, had Xenophon indicated in the Hellenika —on the heels of his description of the Athenian suffering (in books one and two)—that he had befriended and marched with Cyrus against Artaxerxes, he would have 5 Flower (2012) p. 54. 6 Anabasis 5.3.7, 7.7.57. 7 Hellenika 2.2.11; also §14, §21. 8 Hellenika 2.3.15–23, 2.4.21. According to one report, the Thirty “killed, for the sake of private gain, just about more Athenians in eight months than all the Peloponnesians did in ten years of war”: Hellenika 2.4.21. 9 Hellenika 1.5.1–10, 2.1.11–12, 2.1.13–15, 2.3.7–8; see also 1.4.1–7. 10 Hellenika 3.1.1. 304 APPENDIX 1 cast a very long shadow over his patriotism. He would have reminded the Athenians that he had befriended and helped their mortal enemy. He must have been reluctant to vex them (further) in this way. Hence, he deem- phasized his authorship of the Anabasis at the beginning of book three of the Hellenika , expecting that thoughtful readers would understand, upon reflection, that he had to be “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse.” The foregoing explanation is only a preliminary elucidation of Xenophon’s use of a pseudonym. I will return to the issue since I have not yet resolved it. But first, I have to explain why Xenophon settles on this particular pseudonym. For he could have chosen any pseudonym he fancied. He coined a different one for the Anabasis —“Theopompos of Athens,” as we saw (2.1.12–13). Why does Xenophon wish to come to sight as “Themistogen ē s of Syracuse” in the Hellenika ? 11 “Themistogen ē s” means “the offspring of law” or “he who is born of right” (THEMIS-GIGNOMAI). The name calls attention to Xenophon’s rootedness in justice—or, more precisely, in divine law (THEMIS)—as well as to his origin or parentage. The meaning of the name, however, is obscure. The word “THEMIS” is rare in Xenophon. It occurs only three times, I believe, and not once in either the Hellenika or the Anabasis .12 “Syracuse,” on the other hand, is mentioned frequently in the Hellenika and elsewhere too.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Outbreak of the Rebellion of Cyrus the Younger Jeffrey Rop
    The Outbreak of the Rebellion of Cyrus the Younger Jeffrey Rop N THE ANABASIS, Xenophon asserts that the Persian prince Cyrus the Younger was falsely accused of plotting a coup I d’état against King Artaxerxes II shortly after his accession to the throne in 404 BCE. Spared from execution by the Queen Mother Parysatis, Cyrus returned to Lydia determined to seize the throne for himself. He secretly prepared his rebellion by securing access to thousands of Greek hoplites, winning over Persian officials and most of the Greek cities of Ionia, and continuing to send tribute and assurances of his loyalty to the unsuspecting King (1.1).1 In Xenophon’s timeline, the rebellion was not official until sometime between the muster of his army at Sardis in spring 401, which spurred his rival Tissaphernes to warn Artaxerxes (1.2.4–5), and his arrival several months later at Thapsacus on the Euphrates, where Cyrus first openly an- nounced his true intentions (1.4.11). Questioning the “strange blindness” of Artaxerxes in light of Cyrus’ seemingly obvious preparations for revolt, Pierre Briant proposed an alternative timeline placing the outbreak of the rebellion almost immediately after Cyrus’ return to Sardis in late 404 or early 403.2 In his reconstruction, the King allowed Cyrus 1 See also Ctesias FGrHist 688 F 16.59, Diod. 14.19, Plut. Artax. 3–4. 2 Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (Winona Lake 2002) 617–620. J. K. Anderson, Xenophon (New York 1974) 80, expresses a similar skepticism. Briant concludes his discussion by stating that the rebellion officially (Briant does not define “official,” but I take it to mean when either the King or Cyrus declared it publicly) began in 401 with the muster of Cyrus’ army at Sardis, but it is nonetheless appropriate to characterize Briant’s position as dating the official outbreak of the revolt to 404/3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Anton Powell, Nicolas Richer (Eds.), Xenophon and Sparta, the Classical Press of Wales, Swansea 2020, 378 Pp.; ISBN 978-1-910589-74-8
    ELECTRUM * Vol. 27 (2020): 213–216 doi:10.4467/20800909EL.20.011.12801 www.ejournals.eu/electrum Anton Powell, Nicolas Richer (eds.), Xenophon and Sparta, The Classical Press of Wales, Swansea 2020, 378 pp.; ISBN 978-1-910589-74-8 The reviewed book is a collection of twelve papers, previously presented at the confe- rence organised by École Normale Supérieure in Lyon in 2006. According to the edi- tors, this is a first volume in the planned series dealing with sources of Spartan his- tory. The books that follow this will deal with the presence of this topic in works by Thucydides, Herodotus, Plutarch, and in archaeological material. The decision to start the cycle from Xenophon cannot be considered as surprising; this ancient author has not only written about Sparta, but also had opportunities to visit the country, person- ally met a number of its officials (including king Agesilaus), and even sent his own sons for a Spartan upbringing. Thus his writings are widely considered as our best source to the history of Sparta in the classical age. Despite this, Xenophon’s literary work remains the subject of numerous controver- sies in discussions among modern scholars. The question of his objectivity is especial- ly problematic and the views about the strong partisanship of Xenophon prevailed for a long time; allegedly, he was depicting Sparta and king Agesilaus in a possibly overly positive light, even omitting inconvenient information.1 In the second half of the 20th century such opinion has been met with a convincing polemic, clearly seen in the works of H.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient History Sourcebook: 11Th Brittanica: Sparta SPARTA an Ancient City in Greece, the Capital of Laconia and the Most Powerful State of the Peloponnese
    Ancient History Sourcebook: 11th Brittanica: Sparta SPARTA AN ancient city in Greece, the capital of Laconia and the most powerful state of the Peloponnese. The city lay at the northern end of the central Laconian plain, on the right bank of the river Eurotas, a little south of the point where it is joined by its largest tributary, the Oenus (mount Kelefina). The site is admirably fitted by nature to guard the only routes by which an army can penetrate Laconia from the land side, the Oenus and Eurotas valleys leading from Arcadia, its northern neighbour, and the Langada Pass over Mt Taygetus connecting Laconia and Messenia. At the same time its distance from the sea-Sparta is 27 m. from its seaport, Gythium, made it invulnerable to a maritime attack. I.-HISTORY Prehistoric Period.-Tradition relates that Sparta was founded by Lacedaemon, son of Zeus and Taygete, who called the city after the name of his wife, the daughter of Eurotas. But Amyclae and Therapne (Therapnae) seem to have been in early times of greater importance than Sparta, the former a Minyan foundation a few miles to the south of Sparta, the latter probably the Achaean capital of Laconia and the seat of Menelaus, Agamemnon's younger brother. Eighty years after the Trojan War, according to the traditional chronology, the Dorian migration took place. A band of Dorians united with a body of Aetolians to cross the Corinthian Gulf and invade the Peloponnese from the northwest. The Aetolians settled in Elis, the Dorians pushed up to the headwaters of the Alpheus, where they divided into two forces, one of which under Cresphontes invaded and later subdued Messenia, while the other, led by Aristodemus or, according to another version, by his twin sons Eurysthenes and Procles, made its way down the Eurotas were new settlements were formed and gained Sparta, which became the Dorian capital of Laconia.
    [Show full text]
  • Marathon 2,500 Years Edited by Christopher Carey & Michael Edwards
    MARATHON 2,500 YEARS EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS BULLETIN OF THE INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SUPPLEMENT 124 DIRECTOR & GENERAL EDITOR: JOHN NORTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLICATIONS: RICHARD SIMPSON MARATHON – 2,500 YEARS PROCEEDINGS OF THE MARATHON CONFERENCE 2010 EDITED BY CHRISTOPHER CAREY & MICHAEL EDWARDS INSTITUTE OF CLASSICAL STUDIES SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON 2013 The cover image shows Persian warriors at Ishtar Gate, from before the fourth century BC. Pergamon Museum/Vorderasiatisches Museum, Berlin. Photo Mohammed Shamma (2003). Used under CC‐BY terms. All rights reserved. This PDF edition published in 2019 First published in print in 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN: 978-1-905670-81-9 (2019 PDF edition) DOI: 10.14296/1019.9781905670819 ISBN: 978-1-905670-52-9 (2013 paperback edition) ©2013 Institute of Classical Studies, University of London The right of contributors to be identified as the authors of the work published here has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Designed and typeset at the Institute of Classical Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introductory note 1 P. J. Rhodes The battle of Marathon and modern scholarship 3 Christopher Pelling Herodotus’ Marathon 23 Peter Krentz Marathon and the development of the exclusive hoplite phalanx 35 Andrej Petrovic The battle of Marathon in pre-Herodotean sources: on Marathon verse-inscriptions (IG I3 503/504; Seg Lvi 430) 45 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Excavating Classical Amphipolis & on the Lacedaemonian General
    Adelphi University Adelphi Digital Commons Anthropology Faculty Publications Anthropology 12-1-2002 Excavating Classical Amphipolis & On the Lacedaemonian General Brasidas Chaido Koukouli-Chrysanthaki Anagnostis P. Agelarakis Adelphi University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.adelphi.edu/ant_pubs Part of the Anthropology Commons Repository Citation Koukouli-Chrysanthaki, Chaido and Agelarakis, Anagnostis P., "Excavating Classical Amphipolis & On the Lacedaemonian General Brasidas" (2002). Anthropology Faculty Publications. 12. https://digitalcommons.adelphi.edu/ant_pubs/12 This Journal Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology at Adelphi Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Anthropology Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Adelphi Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 3 Excavating Classical Amphipolis Chaido Koukouli -Chrysanthaki The excavations carried out by D. Lazaridis between discovered and excavated;5 there is strong evidence 1956 and 1984 uncovered part of the ancient city of that the city's theatre was located next to it. 6 Amphipolis and its cemeteries, 1 [fig. 1] namely the external walls, the acropolis and, within the walls, In the northern part of the city were discovered: the remains of public and private buildings. On the sanctuary of Klio/ founded during the earliest years acropolis, the Early Christian basilicas destroyed the of the colony; further to the west, a small sanctuary city's important sanctuaries - those of Artemis of Attis dating to the Hellenistic and Early Roman Tauropolos,2 Athena3 and Asclepios4 - which literary periods;8 and, outside the north wall, a small sanctu­ sources and fragmentary votive inscriptions locate ary of a nymph.
    [Show full text]
  • Xenophon and Epaminondas Westlake, H D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1975; 16, 1; Proquest Pg
    Xenophon and Epaminondas Westlake, H D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1975; 16, 1; ProQuest pg. 23 Xenophon and Epaminondas H. D. Westlake HE PRESENTATION ofEpaminondas by Xenophon is very remark­ Table, even in a work so unmethodically and capriciously written as the Hellenica. Epaminondas is mentioned for the first time as leader of a Theban expedition to Achaea in 366 B.c. (7.1.41)1 when his achievements already included his celebrated defiance of Agesilaus at the Peace Congress of 371, his defeat of the Spartans at Leuctra, and his first two invasions of the Peloponnese, which resulted in the devastation of Laconia, the liberation of Mes­ senia and the foundation of Messene and Megalopolis. 2 The suppres­ sion of his name up to that point has rightly been attributed to the notorious antipathy of Xenophon towards the The bans, which causes him to deny to their principal leader the credit due for all these achievements.3 It is, therefore, astonishing to find that when Xenophon deals with the fourth The ban invasion of the Peloponnese culminating in the battle of Mantinea (7.5.4-27), Epaminondas dominates the narrative: the course of events is recorded almost exclusively from his point of view; his plans and motives are carefully analysed; he is credited with having shown foresight and boldness throughout the campaign; some of his actions are explicitly praised. It is tempting to interpret the presentation of Epaminondas in the last pages of the Hellenica as a palinode; to conclude that Xenophon, conscious of having done him less than justice hitherto, now wishes to 1 All references are to the Hellenica unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Trebizond and North-Eastern Turkey
    TREBIZOND AND NORTH-EASTERN TURKEY BY DENIS A. H. WRIGHT A lecture delivered to the Royal Central Asian Society on Wednesday, October 24, 1945. In the Chair, Admiral Sir Howard Kelly, G.B.E., K.C.B., C.M.G., M.V.O. The CHAIRMAN, in introducing the lecturer, said: Mr. Denis Wright is going to speak to us about the port of Trebizond, whose poetical- sounding name suggests the starting-point of the " Golden Road to Samarkand." I had the pleasure of serving with Mr. Wright in Turkey. From September, 1939, to February, 1941, he was British Vice-Consul at Constanta. After the rupture of diplomatic relations with Rumania he went to take charge of the British Consulate at Trebizond. There, for almost two years, he and his wife were the only two English people; for part of that time he was the only British representative on the Black Sea. From May, 1943, until January of 1945 Mr. Wright was our Consul at Mersin. Although he and I had no direct dealings with each other, I know he was one of the most co-operative of all the British officials in Turkey, and that he did everything he possibly could to help the Services. WHEN in February, 1941, I passed through Ankara on my first visit to Trebizond I was told three things about the place: firstly, that it was the centre of a very large hazelnut-producing area, probably the largest in the world; secondly, that my British community there would be a very small one; and, thirdly, that Trebizond had for many hundreds of years been the transit port of a most important trade to and from Persia, that that trade still flourished, and that I should see camels arriving daily from Persia loaded with all the exotic merchandise of the East.
    [Show full text]
  • 09. Ch. 6 Huitink-Rood
    Histos Supplement ( ) – SUBORDINATE OFFICERS IN XENOPHON’S ANABASIS * Luuk Huitink and Tim Rood Abstract : This chapter focuses on Xenophon’s treatment of divisions within the command structure presented in the Anabasis , and in particular on three military positions that are briefly mentioned—the taxiarch, ὑποστράτηγος , and ὑπολόχαγος . Arguing against the prescriptive military hierarchies proposed in earlier scholarship, it suggests that ‘taxiarch’ should be understood fluidly and that the appearance of both the ὑποστράτηγος and the ὑπολόχαγος may be due to interpolation. The chapter also includes discussion of two types of comparative material: procedures for replacing dead, absent, or deposed generals at Athens and Sparta in the Classical period, and the lexical development of subordinate positions with the prefix ὑπο -. Keywords : Xenophon, Anabasis , subordinate commanders, taxiarch, ὑποστράτηγος , ὑπολόχαγος . enophon’s Anabasis has more often been broadly eulogised for its supposed depiction of the X democratic spirit of the Greek mercenaries whose adventures are recounted than analysed closely for the details it o?ers about the command structure of this ‘wandering republic’. 1 When Xenophon’s presentation of * References are to Xenophon’s Anabasis unless otherwise specified. Translations are adapted from the Loeb edition of Brownson and Dillery. We are grateful to Peter Rhodes for advice and to Simon Hornblower, Nick Stylianou, David Thomas, the editor, and the anonymous referee of Histos for comments on the whole article. Luuk Huitink’s work on this paper was made possible by ERC Grant Agreement n. B B (AncNar). 1 Krüger (E ) (‘civitatem peregrinantem’). On the command structure see Nussbaum (F) ‒E; Roy (F) EF‒; Lee ( F) ‒ , ‒ .
    [Show full text]
  • Xenophon's Life and Times: Some Important Dates
    Xenophon Anabasis Xenophon’s Life and Times: Some Important Dates BC 431 Outbreak of Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta 430 – 425 Birth of Xenophon (in Athens) 423 Birth of Cyrus the Younger 413 Destruction of the Athenian expedition to Sicily 411 – 410 Athenian democracy overthrown, and oligarchic rule imposed (The 400) 410 Democracy restored at Athens 407 Cyrus becomes viceroy of Asia Minor 406 Athenian victory at the Battle of Arginusae, and the subsequent trial of the generals. 405 Artaxerxes II (elder brother of Cyrus) succeeds to the throne of Persia The Athenian fleet is destroyed by Lysander at Aegospotami 404 Athens surrenders to Sparta The Thirty Tyrants are established at Athens Xenophon serves in their cavalry (?) 401 Xenophon joins the expedition of Cyrus the Younger who is defeated at the Battle of Cunaxa (near Babylon) Xenophon becomes a general and the Ten Thousand begin their retreat 400 The Ten Thousand reach the Black Sea, and continue their retreat to Byzantium Agesilaus becomes one of Sparta’s two kings 400 – 399 Xenophon and the Ten Thousand with Seuthes in Thrace 399 Xenophon brings the remnant of the Ten Thousand to join the Spartan Thibron in Asia Minor Socrates is tried and executed in Athens 399 – 394 Xenophon serves under the Spartans in Asia Minor 395 Outbreak of the Corinthian War: Athens, Corinth and Thebes in coalition against Sparta 394 Agesilaus is recalled from Asia Minor to Greece; Xenophon accompanies him Xenophon fights with Sparta at Coronea; he is formally exiled from Athens (if not already
    [Show full text]
  • Mercenaries, Poleis, and Empires in the Fourth Century Bce
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts ALL THE KING’S GREEKS: MERCENARIES, POLEIS, AND EMPIRES IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BCE A Dissertation in History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies by Jeffrey Rop © 2013 Jeffrey Rop Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2013 ii The dissertation of Jeffrey Rop was reviewed and approved* by the following: Mark Munn Professor of Ancient Greek History and Greek Archaeology, Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Dissertation Advisor Chair of Committee Gary N. Knoppers Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, Religious Studies, and Jewish Studies Garrett G. Fagan Professor of Ancient History and Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies Kenneth Hirth Professor of Anthropology Carol Reardon George Winfree Professor of American History David Atwill Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies Graduate Program Director for the Department of History *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT This dissertation examines Greek mercenary service in the Near East from 401- 330 BCE. Traditionally, the employment of Greek soldiers by the Persian Achaemenid Empire and the Kingdom of Egypt during this period has been understood to indicate the military weakness of these polities and the superiority of Greek hoplites over their Near Eastern counterparts. I demonstrate that the purported superiority of Greek heavy infantry has been exaggerated by Greco-Roman authors. Furthermore, close examination of Greek mercenary service reveals that the recruitment of Greek soldiers was not the purpose of Achaemenid foreign policy in Greece and the Aegean, but was instead an indication of the political subordination of prominent Greek citizens and poleis, conducted through the social institution of xenia, to Persian satraps and kings.
    [Show full text]
  • The Court of Cyrus the Younger in Anatolia: Some Remarks
    STUDIES IN ANCIENT ART AND CIVILIZATION, VOL. 23 (2019) pp. 95-111, https://doi.org/10.12797/SAAC.23.2019.23.05 Michał Podrazik University of Rzeszów THE COURT OF CYRUS THE YOUNGER IN ANATOLIA: SOME REMARKS Abstract: Cyrus the Younger (born in 424/423 BC, died in 401 BC), son of the Great King Darius II (424/423-404 BC) and Queen Parysatis, is well known from his activity in Anatolia. In 408 BC he took power there as a karanos (Old Persian *kārana-, Greek κάρανος), a governor of high rank with extensive military and political competence reporting directly to the Great King. Holding his power in Anatolia, Cyrus had his own court there, in many respects modeled after the Great King’s court. The aim of this article is to show some aspects of functioning and organization of Cyrus the Younger’s court in Anatolia. Keywords: Cyrus the Younger; court; court’s staff and protocol In 4081, Cyrus, commonly known as the Younger (424/423-401), son of the Great King Darius II (424/423-404), was appointed by his father to rule over an important part of the Achaemenid Empire, Anatolia. Cyrus wielded his power there as karanos (Old Persian *kārana-, Greek κάρανος), a high- ranking governor with extensive military and political competence, reporting directly to the Great King (see Podrazik 2018, 69-83; cf. Barkworth 1993, 150-151; Debord 1999, 122-123; Briant 2002, 19, 321, 340, 600, 625-626, 878, 1002; Hyland 2013, 2-5). Cyrus held his own court while in Anatolia. The court was organized along the lines of the King’s court, but was certainly no match for it 1 All dates in the article pertain to the events before the birth of Christ except where otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]