CHAPTER ONE

STRATEGEMA AND STRATAGEM

The Greek word a,pcn11rr1µa first appears early in the second quarter of the fourth century B.C. in Xenophon (Mem. 3.5.22). Its use by other authors of this period, however, and its isolated single occurrence in the Xenophontic corpus suggest that it was not his invention. Its birth came without fanfare. In the practice of military trickery, already centuries if not millenia old, no one hailed the dawn of a new era, nor did Greek liter• ature, which since Homer had described ruse behavior with other words, seem significantly enriched. Indeed, except for what can be ascertained from the context of passages in which strategema occurs in its first century of use, absolute certainty about its initial meaning is elusive. Perhaps some works from the genre of collections of stratagems which arose in the Hellenistic period contained definitions, but the only extant Greek exam• ple of this literature, the Strategika of Polyaenus, does not. So, it would appear, no Greek before the Christian apologist Clement of Alexandria bothered to define strategema, and no Greek would again before the Byzan• tine encyclopedia the Suda in the tenth century. Not until Cicero introduced strategema into Latin and subsequent Latin authors groped to find a suitable equivalent expression in their own tongue, do useful and contemporary definitions appear. Latin definitions in fact antedate the Greek: the first formal one belongs to Valerius Maxi• mus, and Frontinus contributed a second about fifty years later. For a study of strategema's usage, however, neither the initial Greek definition of Clement of Alexandria, marred by obscurity, nor the earlier first Latin definition by Valerius Maximus, the victim of a corrupt text, offers a suitable point of departure. It is preferable to begin with Frontinus, who establishes the proper framework of the problem. Frontinus' Strategemata, composed between 84 and 88, represents the only surviving Latin example from the genre of collections of strata• gems.1 For Frontinus (Strat. 1 praef. 1) what the Greeks call strategemata are the clever deeds of generals (sollertia ducum Jacta), which offer com• manders examples of planning ( consilium) and foresight (providentia). Strate• gemata, however, should be carefully distinguished from strategika:

1 Bendz 2-4, 7. 2 STRATEGEMA AND STRATAGEM

And in fact all things, which are done by a general with foresight, expedien• cy, fame, and tenacity, will be considered strategika; if they are in a category of these, strategemata. The particular nature of strategemata, lying in art and cleverness, profits when an enemy must be warded off as well as attacked. 2 Frontinus' distinction of the two terms is far from clear and comes rather late in a tradition of military theory, which in written form begins to take shape in the fourth century B. C. 3 It is apparent from Frontin us' definition that strategemata denote offensive and defensive trickery, whereas strategika do not necessarily do so. The elements of art and clever• ness characterize examples as strategemata and thus as a category (in specie) of the broader areas of strategika. 4 This distinction forms the basis for the organization of Frontinus' treatise: books 1 - 3 contain strategemata and book 4 strategika, although in 4. 7 he reverts once again to strategemata. Is Frontinus' distinction between the two terms correct, and if so, what significance does it have? These questions come sharply into focus with the problem of the title of Polyaenus' treatise, a work in no way depen• dent on that of Frontinus and composed about eighty years later on the occasion of Lucius Verus' Parthian War (ca 161-65).5 The manuscript tradition is clear that the title of Polyaenus' work is Strategika. In the pref• ace to each of his eight books, however, Polyaenus refers to the anecdotes collected as strategemata, but he includes many examples considered strate• gika by Frontinus. 6 One can argue that strategika and strategemata cannot be distinguished and that even Frontinus failed in his attempt. 7 This view, however, fails to account for why Greek authors from the late third

2 Front., Strat. 1 praef. 4: Namque omnia, quae a duce provide, utiliter, magnifice, constanter fiunt, otpatl]ytKa habebuntur; si in specie eorum sun/, otpa,11y11µata. Horum propria vis in arte sollertiaque posita proficit tam ubi cavendus quam opprimendus hostis sit. 3 On the origins of military theory see my "The Origins of Military Theory in An• cient Greece and China," International Commission of Military History, Acta 5, Bucarest 1980 (Bucharest 1981) 74- 79 and "The Hoplomachoi and Vegetius' Spartan Drillmasters," Chi• ron 13 (1983) 1-20. Cf. Adolf Bauer, "Die Anfiinge der Kriegswissenschaft," Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Geschichte 3 ( 1886) 1 -12 and Die griechische Altertumer: die Kriegsaltertumer (Munich 1893) 273- 78. 4 Cf. Ari st., EN 1.1. 4: every military practice is subordinate to the art of generalship (Kai naoa no)..i:µtKTJ 1tpn~1c; (mo TTJV o,patl]YtKtjv TEXVT]V). Frontinus' in specie cannot mean "in the pretext" or "in the appearance" which would bring an additional sense of trick• ery to the sentence, since he clearly uses species as "category" in 1 praef. 5, 2 praef., 3 pracf., and 4. praef. 5 Friedrich Lammert, "Polyainos 8," RE 21 (1952) 1453 and "Strategemata," RE, Reihe 2, 4 ( 19 31) 180. 6 For example, the famous story of Camillus' refusal to accept a schoolmaster's offer to betray his pupils as a means to compel the surrender of Falerii to the Romans is for Fron tin us (Strat. 4.4 .1) an instance of justice, therefore a strategikon, while Polyaenus (8. 7 .1) calls it a pious stratagem (1:uoi:l3Ei otpatl]Yllµan). See also Lammert, RE 4, 177-78 and RE 21, 1433. 7 Schindler 201.