DOCSLIB.ORG

Classical Greek and Classical Chinese Warfare: a Comparative Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2000-06 Classical Greek and classical Chinese warfare: a comparative analysis Allers, Michael C. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/32930 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California THESIS CLASSICAL GREEK AND CLASSICAL CHINESE WARFARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS by Michael C. Allers June 2000 Thesis Advisor: Gordon H. McCormick Second Reader: George Lober Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 20000802 198 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of infonnation is estimated to average I hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of infonnation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of infonnation, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Infonnation Operations and Reports, I 215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite I204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED June 2000 Master's Thesis TITLE AND SUBTITLE : Classical Greek and Classical Chinese Warfare: A 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Comparative Analysis 5. AUTHOR(S) Allers, Michael C. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) REPORT NUMBER Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943-5000 9. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER NIA 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. 12a. DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 13. ABSTRACT (maximum 200 words) This study is a comparative analysis of the warfare traditions of classical China and Classical Greece. The first part of this study is designed to provide a framework for understanding how certain characteristics of a society's military tradition arise, and in particular, why certain aspects of the military traditions of classical China and classical Greece are dissimilar while other aspects are similar. Specifically, chapter two demonstrates that the particular socio-political situation of a given state sets constraints upon the way that state can mobilize, organize, and employ a military force, and shows that intensive militant competition places a market incentive on a state to innovate and to select the most efficient defensive action options from the feasible set of possibilities. The third chapter suggests that the major differences in warfare character between classical Greece and China stem from the robust differences in the socio-political situations of the two societies. The methodological approach for the second part, chapters four and five, is simple comparative analysis. Chapter four examines organizational differences of classical Greek and Chinese warfare-specifically differences related to annaments, force structures, and command and control elements. The subsequent chapter five examines the main differences relating to classical Greek and Chinese operational concepts. 13. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES Classical Warfare, Military Organization, Concepts of Operations 180 16. PRICE CODE I7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION I 8. SECURITY I 9. SECURITY 20. LIMITATION OF OF REPORT CLASSIFICATION OF THIS CLASSIFICATION ABSTRACT PAGE OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified UL NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-I 8 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited CLASSICAL GREEK AND CLASSICAL CHINESE WARFARE: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS Michael C. Allers Ensign, United States Navy B.A., Cornell University, 1999 Submitted in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN DEFENSE ANALYSIS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 2000 Author: Uordo1n H. McCormick, Chairman Special Operations Academic Group 111 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK lV ABSTRACT This study is a comparative analysis of the warfare traditions of classical China and Classical Greece. The first part of this study is designed to provide a framework for understanding how certain characteristics of a society's military tradition arise, and in particular, why certain aspects of the military traditions of classical China and classical Greece are dissimilar while other aspects are similar. Specifically, chapter two demonstrates that the particular socio-political situation of a given state sets constraints upon the way that state can mobilize, organize, and employ a military force, and shows that intensive militant competition places a market incentive on a state to innovate and to select the most efficient defensive action options from the feasible set of possibilities. The third chapter suggests that the major differences in warfare character between classical Greece and China stem from the robust differences in the socio-political situations of the two societies. The methodological approach for the second part, chapters four and five, is simple comparative analysis. Chapter four examines organizational differences of classical Greek and Chinese warfare-specifically differences related to armaments, force structures, and command and control elements. The subsequent chapter five examines the main differences relating to classical Greek and Chinese operational concepts. v THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK vi TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1 A. PURPOSE ................................................................................................... 1 B. SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION: CHAPTERS II AND III ...................... 3 1. Approach ........................................................................................ 3 2. Previous Efforts to Understand the Character of Warfare ....... 5 a. Warfare as an Expression of Culture ................................ 5 b. Strategic Culture ................................................................. 8 B. SPECIFIC INTRODUCTION: CHAPTERS IV AND V .................... 10 II. A MODEL OF FLUCTUATIONS IN WARFARE CHARACTER ............... 13 A. INTRODUCTION TO THE MODEL ................................................... 14 B. EXPLICATION OF TIME PERIODS AND VARIABLES ................ 16 1. Time Periods ................................................................................. 17 2. Dependent Variable: Warfare Character.................................. 18 3. Independent Variable 1: The Locus of Political Power............ 19 4. Independent Variable 2: Competition ....................................... 21 C. THE FUNCTION OF THE MODEL ..................................................... 22 1. The Function of Independent Variable 1: The Locus of Political Power .............................................................. 23 2. The Function of Independent Variable 2: Competition ........... 24 D. SPECIFIC SCENARIOS ....................................................................... 26 1. Scenario 1: Political Power in the Hands of the People: ........ 26 2. Scenario 2: Political Power in the hands of the Government .28 III. THE MODEL APPLIED TO ANCIENT GREECE AND CHINA ................ 33 A. ANCIENT GREECE (CIRCA 750-450 B.C.) ........................................ 33 1. Phase 1: The Scattering-Early Archaic Period (750- 650 B.C.) ............................................................................ 35 2. Commentary: ................................................................................ 38 3. Phase II: Expansion and Reform (650- 550 B.C.) .................. .41 4. Commentary: ................................................................................ 43 5. Phase III: Consolidation (550- 450 B.C.) ................................. 44 6. Commentary: ................................................................................ 46 7. Cultural Factors ........................................................................... 49 8. Commentary: ................................................................................ 52 B. ANCIENT CHINA (CIRCA 722- 221 B.C.) ........................................ 57 1. Phase 1: Differentiation-Spring and Autumn (Chunqui) Period (722 - 481 B.C.) ............................................. 60 2. Commentary: ................................................................................ 65 3. Phase II: Chaos-Warring States (Zhanguo) Period (481- 221 B.C.) ............................................................................ 67 4. Commentary: ................................................................................ 70 Vll 5. Cultural Factors ........................................................................... 73 6. Commentary: ...................... ;......................................................... 75 IV. ORGANIZING TO OPERATE .......................................................................... 79 A. ARMAMENT AND EQUIPMENT .....................................................
Recommended publications
  • The Demos in Demokratia.Pdf

    The Demos in Demokratia.Pdf

    The Classical Quarterly 1–20 © The Classical Association (2019) 1 doi:10.1017/S0009838819000636 THE DĒMOS IN DĒMOKRATIA* The meaning of dēmokratia is widely agreed: ‘rule by the people’ (less often ‘people- power’), where dēmos, ‘people’, implies ‘entire citizen body’, synonymous with polis, ‘city-state’,orπάντες πολίται, ‘all citizens’.1 Dēmos, on this understanding, comprised rich and poor, leaders and followers, mass and elite alike. As such, dēmokratia is interpreted as constituting a sharp rupture from previous political regimes.2 Rule by one man or by a few had meant the domination of one part of the community over the rest, but dēmokratia, it is said, implied self-rule, and with it the dissolution of the very distinction between ruler and ruled.3 Its governing principle was the formal political equality of all citizens. In the words of W.G. Forrest, between 750 and 450 B.C. there had developed ‘the idea of individual human autonomy … the idea that all members of a political society are free and equal, that everyone had the right to an equal say in determining the structure and the activities of his society’.4 * Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2013 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, the 2015 meeting of the Northeastern Political Science Association and the department of Classics at Yale in 2016. In addition to those audiences, I thank Cliff Ando, Victor Bers, Paul Cammack, Paul Cartledge, David Grewal, Kinch Hoekstra, David Lewis, John Mulhern, Hari Ramesh, Gunnar Seelentag, George Scialabba, Richard Tuck, John Tully, Jane Mansbridge, Josiah Ober, John Zumbrunnen, two anonymous referees and my colleagues in the department of Political Science at Yale, where this research was completed.
  • Ancient Greek Hoplites and Their Origins

    Ancient Greek Hoplites and Their Origins

    Ancient Greek Hoplites and their Origins By Jordan Wilde Senior Seminar (HST 499W) June 6, 2008 Primary Reader: Dr. Benedict Lowe Secondary Reader: Dr. Lorie Carlson Course Instructor: Dr. David Doellinger History Department Western Oregon University 1 The ancient Greek hoplites were heavily armed infantry soldiers, known for wearing extensive armor, carrying a large rounded shield, spears, and a sword. By looking at armor, weapons, tactics, and vases recovered from archaeological digs, along with literature of the time, such as Homer’s Iliad (ca. 700 B.C.)1 and Hesiod’s Shield of Heracles (ca. end of the late 8th century B.C)2, who and what a hoplite was can be defined. The scholarly consensus has been that eighth century B.C. is crucial in exploring the origins of hoplites. The eighth century sees a dramatic increase in population leading to the rise of city-states and hoplites. In this paper I am going to consider the evidence for the existence of hoplites during the eighth century B.C. and whether or not there is any evidence for their existence before this. When examining evidence for defining when hoplites first appeared, it’s important to understand what makes a hoplite unique, specifically his equipment, weapons, and tactics. In the article “Hoplites and Heresies,” A.J. Holladay looks at the overall view of the hoplite on the battlefield and some forms of military tactics the Greeks might have had. Holladay examines what is typically assumed as hoplite customs, fighting in a close pack, with their shields in their left hand protecting themselves and their neighbors as well as carrying a spear in their right hand.
  • The Unsettled Debate: Monarchy and Republic in Spain and Greece in the Interwar Years*

    The Unsettled Debate: Monarchy and Republic in Spain and Greece in the Interwar Years*

    ■ Assaig] ENTREMONS. UPF JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY Barcelona ﺍ Universitat Pompeu Fabra Número 6 (juny 2014) www.entremons.org The Unsettled Debate: Monarchy and Republic in Spain and Greece in the Interwar Years* Enric UCELAY-DA CAL (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) abstract The following essay examines the political development in Spain and Greece between the World War I and World War II, comparing these two Mediterranean countries and placing them in a broader European and global context. The conflict between the supporters of monarchy and republic as forms of government was extremely important in the political debate in both countries, and shaped their history in a quite remarkable way. The discussion of these intricate dynamics will help to appreciate the problems that Spain and Greece faced at that time, and can also contribute to a deeper understanding of some key features of the historical change in these two countries. resumen El siguiente ensayo examina el desarrollo político en España y Grecia en el período entre la Primera y la Segunda Guerra Mundial, comparando estos dos países mediterráneos y situándolos en un contexto europeo y global más amplio. El conflicto entre los partidarios de la monarquía y la república como formas de gobierno fue muy importante en el debate político de ambos países, influyendo en su historia de una manera muy notable. La discusión de estas dinámicas complicadas ayudará a apreciar mejor los problemas a los que España y Grecia se enfrentaban en ese momento, contribuyendo asimismo a una comprensión más profunda de algunas de las características clave del cambio histórico en estos dos países.
  • The Herodotos Project (OSU-Ugent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography

    The Herodotos Project (OSU-Ugent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography

    Faculty of Literature and Philosophy Julie Boeten The Herodotos Project (OSU-UGent): Studies in Ancient Ethnography Barbarians in Strabo’s ‘Geography’ (Abii-Ionians) With a case-study: the Cappadocians Master thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Linguistics and Literature, Greek and Latin. 2015 Promotor: Prof. Dr. Mark Janse UGent Department of Greek Linguistics Co-Promotores: Prof. Brian Joseph Ohio State University Dr. Christopher Brown Ohio State University ACKNOWLEDGMENT In this acknowledgment I would like to thank everybody who has in some way been a part of this master thesis. First and foremost I want to thank my promotor Prof. Janse for giving me the opportunity to write my thesis in the context of the Herodotos Project, and for giving me suggestions and answering my questions. I am also grateful to Prof. Joseph and Dr. Brown, who have given Anke and me the chance to be a part of the Herodotos Project and who have consented into being our co- promotores. On a whole other level I wish to express my thanks to my parents, without whom I would not have been able to study at all. They have also supported me throughout the writing process and have read parts of the draft. Finally, I would also like to thank Kenneth, for being there for me and for correcting some passages of the thesis. Julie Boeten NEDERLANDSE SAMENVATTING Deze scriptie is geschreven in het kader van het Herodotos Project, een onderneming van de Ohio State University in samenwerking met UGent. De doelstelling van het project is het aanleggen van een databank met alle volkeren die gekend waren in de oudheid.
  • 109 I. INTRODUCTION the Strategikon Is a Roman Military

    109 I. INTRODUCTION the Strategikon Is a Roman Military

    A C T A AThe R SCTra HT egikonA E Oa S La SOource G I —C SlavA SC andA Ra varP SA… T H I C109 A VOL. LII, 2017 PL ISSN 0001-5229 ŁUKASZ Różycki THE STRATEGIKON AS A SOURCE — SLAVS AND AVARS IN THE EYES OF PSEUDO-MAURICE, CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH AND FUTURE RESEARCH PERSPECTIVES ABSTRACT Ł. Różycki 2017. The Strategikon as a source — Slavs and Avars in the eyes of Pseudo-Maurice, current state of research and future research perspectives, AAC 52:109–131. The purpose of the piece The Strategikon as a source — Slavs and Avars in the eyes of Pseudo- Maurice, current state of research and future research perspectives is to demonstrate what the author of Strategikon knew about the Slavs and Avars and review the state of research on the chapter of the treatise that deals with these two barbarian ethnicities. As a side note to the de- scription of contemporary studies of Strategikon, the piece also lists promising areas of research, which have not yet received proper attention from scholars. K e y w o r d s: Migration Period; Early Middle Ages; Balkans; Byzantium; Strategicon; Strategikon; Emperor Maurice; Slavs; Avars Received: 15.03.2017; Revised: 30.07.2017; Revised: 19.10.2017; Revised: 29.10.2017; Accepted: 30.10.2017 I. INTRODUCTION The Strategikon is a Roman military treatise, written at the end of the 6th or the beginning of the 7th century. It is one of the seminal sources not only on East Roman military history but also on the Slavs, the Avars and other peoples neighboring the Empire at the onset of the Middle Ages.
  • Ancient Greeks Victor Davis Hanson John Keegan, Series Editor

    Ancient Greeks Victor Davis Hanson John Keegan, Series Editor

    SMITHSONIAN HISTORY OF WARFARE WARS OF THE ANCIENT GREEKS VICTOR DAVIS HANSON JOHN KEEGAN, SERIES EDITOR () Smithsonian Books (::::Collins An Imprint ofHarperCollinsPub/ishers For W. K. Pritchett, who revolutionized the study of Ancient Greek warfare Text © 1999 by Victor Davis Hanson Design and layout© 1999 by Cassell & Co. First published in Great Britain 1999 The picture credits on page 240 constitute an extension to this copyright page. Material in the introduction and chapter 5 is based on ideas that appeared in Victor Davis Hanson and john Heath, Who Killed Homer? The Demise if Classical Education and the Recovery ifGreek Wisdom (The Free Press, New York, 1998) 'and Victor Davis Hanson, "Alexander the Kille1~" Quarterly journal ifMilitary History, spring 1998, I 0.3, 8-20. WARS OF THE ANCIENT GREEKS. All rights reserved. No part of this title may be reproduced or transmitted by any means (including photography or storing it in any medium by electronic means and whether or not transiently or incidentally to some other use of this publication) without the written permission of the copyright owner. For infor­ mation, address HarperCollins Publishers, 10 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 10022. Published 2004 in the United States of America by Smithsonian Books Acknowledgments In association with Cassell Wellington House, 125 Strand London WC2R OBB would like to thank John Keegan and Judith Flanders for asking me Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data I to write this volume on the Ancient Greeks at war. My colleague at Hanson, Victor Davis. California State University, Fresno, Professor Bruce Thornton, kindly Wars of the ancient Greeks I Victor Davis Hanson ; John Keegan, general editor.
  • Alexander's Empire

    Alexander's Empire

    4 Alexander’s Empire MAIN IDEA WHY IT MATTERS NOW TERMS & NAMES EMPIRE BUILDING Alexander the Alexander’s empire extended • Philip II •Alexander Great conquered Persia and Egypt across an area that today consists •Macedonia the Great and extended his empire to the of many nations and diverse • Darius III Indus River in northwest India. cultures. SETTING THE STAGE The Peloponnesian War severely weakened several Greek city-states. This caused a rapid decline in their military and economic power. In the nearby kingdom of Macedonia, King Philip II took note. Philip dreamed of taking control of Greece and then moving against Persia to seize its vast wealth. Philip also hoped to avenge the Persian invasion of Greece in 480 B.C. TAKING NOTES Philip Builds Macedonian Power Outlining Use an outline to organize main ideas The kingdom of Macedonia, located just north of Greece, about the growth of had rough terrain and a cold climate. The Macedonians were Alexander's empire. a hardy people who lived in mountain villages rather than city-states. Most Macedonian nobles thought of themselves Alexander's Empire as Greeks. The Greeks, however, looked down on the I. Philip Builds Macedonian Power Macedonians as uncivilized foreigners who had no great A. philosophers, sculptors, or writers. The Macedonians did have one very B. important resource—their shrewd and fearless kings. II. Alexander Conquers Persia Philip’s Army In 359 B.C., Philip II became king of Macedonia. Though only 23 years old, he quickly proved to be a brilliant general and a ruthless politician. Philip transformed the rugged peasants under his command into a well-trained professional army.
  • The Battlefield Role of the Classical Greek General

    The Battlefield Role of the Classical Greek General

    _________________________________________________________________________Swansea University E-Theses The battlefield role of the Classical Greek general. Barley, N. D How to cite: _________________________________________________________________________ Barley, N. D (2012) The battlefield role of the Classical Greek general.. thesis, Swansea University. http://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa43080 Use policy: _________________________________________________________________________ This item is brought to you by Swansea University. Any person downloading material is agreeing to abide by the terms of the repository licence: copies of full text items may be used or reproduced in any format or medium, without prior permission for personal research or study, educational or non-commercial purposes only. The copyright for any work remains with the original author unless otherwise specified. The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holder. Permission for multiple reproductions should be obtained from the original author. Authors are personally responsible for adhering to copyright and publisher restrictions when uploading content to the repository. Please link to the metadata record in the Swansea University repository, Cronfa (link given in the citation reference above.) http://www.swansea.ac.uk/library/researchsupport/ris-support/ Swansea University Prifysgol Abertawe The Battlefield Role of the Classical Greek General N. D. Barley Ph.D. Submitted to the Department of History and Classics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2012 ProQuest Number: 10821472 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.
  • Democracies and International Relations

    Democracies and International Relations

    Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2019, 7, 249-271 http://www.scirp.org/journal/jss ISSN Online: 2327-5960 ISSN Print: 2327-5952 Democracies and International Relations Dingyu Chung Utica, Michigan, USA How to cite this paper: Chung, D. (2019) Abstract Democracies and International Relation. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 249-271. This paper proposes the five different democracies and their international re- https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.77023 lations. Democracy literally means that power (kratos) belongs to the com- mon people (demos) instead of dictators and inherited kings-aristocrats. Dif- Received: June 21, 2019 Accepted: July 23, 2019 ferent types of powers and different types of the common people constitute Published: July 26, 2019 different types of democracies. Within a democratic nation, the intergroup relation among different social groups can be competitive or cooperative. The Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and most conventional democracy is liberal democracy where power, intergroup Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative relation, and people are liberty, competition, and all people, respectively. The Commons Attribution International power of the liberty to compete belongs to all people. All people have liberty License (CC BY 4.0). to compete. Democracies in general are the combinations of different powers http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (elitism, tradition, liberty, equality, and wellbeing), different intergroup rela- Open Access tions (competition and cooperation), and different people (few, most, and all). Therefore, depending on powers, intergroup relations, and people, the five democracies are elite democracy (elitism, competition, few people), na- tionalist democracy (tradition, competition, most people), liberal democracy (liberty, competition, all people), socialist democracy (equality, competition, all people), and relationalist democracy (wellbeing, cooperation, all people).
  • 09. Ch. 6 Huitink-Rood

    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) ‒ , ‒ .
  • Herodotus' Athenian Artemisia

    Herodotus' Athenian Artemisia

    Tyrannos, Rhētōr, and Strategos: Herodotus’ Athenian Artemisia Nick Ackert Harvard University Classical Languages and Literature Class of 2017 Abstract: Portrayed as the charismatic Queen of Halicarnassus, shrewd adviser to the Xerxes, and fearless admiral at the Battle of Salamis, Herodotus' Artemisia boldly transgresses into the traditionally male-dominated spaces of tyrant, orator, and general. While some have interpreted Artemisia’s lack of punctilio as emblematic of a Persia so politically and culturally backwards that even women (viewed by Greeks as the inferior sex) were entrusted with authority, the significance of her narrative may be more complex. In light of recent scholarship about Herodotus’ generally favorable presentation of women, it appears that each of Artemisia’s three appearances - Histories 7.99, 8.68-69, and 8.87-88 – actually serve to liken the Queen to her Athenian foes. An interpretation of Artemisia as fundamentally Athenian reminds us that the rigid, binary association of a “feminine East” and a “masculine West” in Greek historiography should be called into question. Overview† Few case studies have complicated current discussions about the representation of women in Classical Greek literature like the Histories’ portrayal of Artemisia, tyrant-queen of Herodotus’ own Halicarnassus and loyal ally to Xerxes. As roughly contemporary texts like Xenophon’s Oeconomicus suggest, the ideal Greek woman was passive and subservient to the instruction of her older husband; her sphere of influence was relegated to the management of the oikos rather than the political and military affairs of the polis (6.12-7.43, 9.11-10.1). Through Perikles’ misogynistic funeral oration, Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War similarly suggests that during conflict, Athenian wives could be models for all Greek women by serving their embattled husbands as attendants who were never spoken of (2.45.2).Throughout the five chapters of her narrative in the Histories(7.99, 8.68-69, and 8.87-88), however, Artemisia’s characterization and behavior subscribe to no such expectations.
  • Plutarch on Cimon, Athenian Expeditions, and Ephialtes' Reform

    Plutarch on Cimon, Athenian Expeditions, and Ephialtes' Reform

    Plutarch on Cimon, Athenian Expeditions, and Ephialtes’ Reform (Plut. Cim.14–17) Valerij Goušchin N THE 460S B.C. Cimon played a key role in Athenian politics. But his predominance came to an end in 462/1, I when he was ostracized. Not long before his exile he had clashed with Ephialtes over support for the Lacedaemonians, They had called on the Athenians for help against the Helots and perioikoi, who had revolted. Cimon argued strongly for helping the Lacedaemonians while Ephialtes opposed aiding Sparta. But Cimon’s dominance was still great and he was sent, Thucydides reports, to Messenia (1.102.1, cf. Ar. Lys.1137– 1146). While he was away Ephialtes accomplished his reform (462 B.C.), which deprived the Areopagus of its role as guardian of the laws and diminished the influence of the aristocracy. The Lacedaemonians, frightened by Ephialtes’ reform (or by neo- teropoiia in Thucydides’ terminology), dismissed the Athenian contingent. Shortly after returning from Messenia Cimon was ostracized. This is the generally accepted view, which is based mainly on Thucydides’ account.1 We have in addition Plutarch’s narrative in the biography of Cimon, where he presents the course of the same events differ- ently (Cim. 14–17). In particular, he speaks of two Athenian expeditions to Messenia and of the reform of Ephialtes that was carried out at the time of a certain naval expedition. This version is well known, but is considered untrustworthy. I propose that 1 E.g. P. J. Rhodes, “The Athenian Revolution,” in CAH2 V (1992) 69; S. Hornblower, The Greek World 479–323 BC (London/New York 2002) 23.