The Battle of Marathon

The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR Additional services for The Classical Review: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here The Battle of Marathon J. B. Bury The Classical Review / Volume 10 / Issue 02 / March 1896, pp 95 - 98 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00203302, Published online: 27 October 2009 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00203302 How to cite this article: J. B. Bury (1896). The Battle of Marathon. The Classical Review, 10, pp 95-98 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00203302 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 128.122.253.212 on 07 May 2015 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 95 acquainted with the sruaragdos, a term I have purposely left to the last the which included down to the time of Theo- eikosihedron of the Timaeus. No such phrastus (315 B.C.) all the three kinds of crystalline form is known in nature. It is the same beautiful crystal, the beryl, the strange that Plato should have taken a emerald, and aqua marine—is put beyond number which gives no relation to the octa- doubt by the fact that the renowned signet hedron. The Pythagoreans held the num- of Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos (560- ber 24 of great value. It was the product 522 B.C.), which he cast into the sea to avert of 1 x 2 x 3 x 4, just as the sum of these Nemesis, was a smaragdos engraved for first four digits was 10. If Plato had him by the famous sculptor and engraver, taken a 24-sided figure, it would have been Theodorus of Samos (Herod, iii. 41). The in relation to 4 and 8 (the pyramid and beryl was found in Cyprus, as we learn double pyramid), and it would ftave had a from Theophrastus {pp. cit. 26), who alludes prototype in nature. But for our purpose to the beautiful cylindrical hexagons in it is unnecessary to discuss what Plato which it is found as rods (pa./38oi). The meant. With him the mathematical side Greeks used these elegant natural crystals was completely detached from the natural as earrings. Such have been found in phenomenon, the observation of which had Cypriote graves. Long cylindrical beads probably led Pythagoras to conceive that of emeralds and beryls have been found the world existed by the imitation of in the archaic tombs of Rhodes. natural crystals. As Theophrastus certainly knew the Imitation was an excellent term to difference between crystalline and amor- employ. Every one conversant with crystal- phous substances, there can be no reasonable lography knows how frequently crystals are ground for doubting that the engravers of mis-shapen, the facets irregular. Pytha- archaic gems must have learned very early goras as a practical engraver could not help this difference. In fact it is absolutely observing this and feeling that they fre- certain that the observation of such a quently were not perfect mathematical difference must have been first made by solids, but attempted imitations of such, those whose profession it was to seek after more or less imperfect. crystals. WILLIAM RIDGEWAY. THE BATTLE OF MARATHON. THE second volume of the excellent in which the Persians are represented as English translation of Holm's History of acting like children. Any one'who reads Greece J contains some of the best work of critically the Herodotean account must see the historian. When we come into the clear that Herodotus had not the smallest idea field of historical fact, Holm's narrative and why the battle was fought, and had a very exposition are masterly. It is in the dimmer inadequate notion of how it was fought. He regions where we find anecdote, legend, and has collected a number of details, some true, history mixed that he is less satisfactory; others absurd ; which, as he relates them, and his first volume is the weakest of are without any inner connexion. the four. The weakness consists in a certain In his extremely interesting and im- credulous caution, if I may use the expres- portant historical studies on Herodotus sion, in dealing with such a source, for (vol. ii. of his recent edition of Books iv., example, as Herodotus. His excessive dis- v., vi.) Mr. Reginald Macan has devoted a trust of scepticism leads him into distrust hundred pages to an elaborate examination of criticism. This defect is illustrated in of the problems connected with Marathon. vol. ii. in the account of the Persian war. He has not only done good service by his The narrative of the campaign of Marathon minute criticism of all the extant evidence, given by Herodotus is simply reproduced but he has made a distinct contribution to by Holm, without any adequate recognition the reconstruction of the battle. of the difficulties besetting that narrative, The first important step was taken by 1 History of Greece, by Adolf Holm. TranslatedLeake who saw that the Athenian camp was from the German. Vol. ii. The Fifth Century B. o. near Vrana, at the mouth of the valley of London and New York : Macmillan. 1896. Price 6s. Avlona; and this discovery was reinforced 96 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. by Lolling who determined the site of the this is not what Herodotus says. Holm Herakleion in that valley. Mr. Macan has characteristically repeats the insufficient now explained, convincingly as I think, the solution of Herodotus. ' Here, the country occasion of the battle, and shown how the being level, they were able to use their cavalry Athenians were lured out of a position of to the best advantage.' If the main object great strategic strength. The Persians of landing at Marathon was to use their 'decided to make a movement upon Athens, cavalry, no one, on the old view of the with fleet and with infantry at once, and to battle, gave any reasons, that will bear make it by the pass to the south, the main examination, for the circumstance that they road to Athens. By this route navy and made no use of it at all. Curtius suggested army would remain in touch, at least while that the cavalry must have been re-embarked, in presence of the enemy...."Whether the and found in this hypothesis an explanation Persians were convinced that the Greeks of the Athenian attack.1 But the hypo- would in terror allow them to go by un- thesis was incomplete until an adequate molested or whether they were in utrumque motive for the re-embarkation had been parati, prepared to do battle if the occasion assigned. Mr. Macan's theory supplies *, arose, may be a question. The greater the needed motive. The Persians disembark probability seems to incline to the view that their cavalry; after the arrival of the the Persians were fully prepared' (p. 241). Athenians, ' for several days the armies ' Nothing in the traditions concerning the remained in their respective positions,' the actual milee would justify us in assuming Persians during that time desiring and that the Persians were taken in flank or off attempting ' to draw the Athenians down guard' (p. 242). But this hypothesis is into the plain towards the shore' (p. 240). not quite complete, so far as the battle The Athenians would not be drawn, and ' the is concerned, and requires to be supple- Persians at last decided to make a movement mented, as has been pointed out by Mr. upon Athens.' For this purpose the cavalry Macan's reviewer in the Athenaeum, (Dec. was re-embarked (p. 242); on the march to 21, 1895). The elements of the art of war Athens it would have been a useless demanded that, when the Persian army encumbrance. marched southward with the right flank exposed to the Greeks at Vrana, the Greek But, while the problem of the cavalry is position should be masked by a strong vital in determining our theory of the battle, detachment drawn up facing the Vrana it does not matter so much to the considera- valley. This assumption, which is simply a tion of the question why the Persians logical consequence of Mr. Macan's dis- landed at the Marathonian plain. If there covery, explains the details of the battle. had been no cavalry, this plain would have seemed to possess equal advantages Mr. Macan's hypothesis, thus supple- for deploying large numbers of infantry mented, while it elucidates the immediate against a far less numerous foe. The circumstances of the fight, does not, and important point which emerges—on any does not claim to, carry with it a fully theory—is that the Persians wanted to fight, satisfactory view of the whole campaign. or to accomplish something which might But it is a step, of which the importance involve a fight, whether with or without must be fully recognized, towards the solu- cavalry, at Marathon. This leads us to the tion of the larger problem. The question, why the Persians landed on 1 ' What became of the cavalry afterwards ? Why do we hear nothing of their re-embarkation ? What the Marathonian plain, was considered by room is there in the story for that lengthy and elabo- Herodotus and answered thus (vi. 102): rate operation after the battle ? How were they got Kal rjv yap 6 Mapa0o)V liri-nfieoTaTov \u>piov ri}s off ? Curtius's suggestion lets in some light on this ' ATTIKJJS hrnrrrevcrcu Kal dy^oTaTO) rijs 'Eperpirjs. dark place. The cavalry was brought, as might be supposed, to Marathon, and there put on shore. The Both the statements are false. Marathon cavalry was re-embarked ; and its re-embarkation was is not the part of Attica nearest to Eretria, the reason for the Athenian attack.

Load more