07-25-2006, 04:47 PM
Quote:If we accept the story, I can hardly think of a more capable commander in all of history. He wasn't going to win this battle, but morale being such a huge factor in ancient battles,Perhaps some form criticism is in place. Herodotus says explicitly that Leonidas was waiting for reinforcements that failed to show up (7.206). That's in a part of the story where Herodotus could check his information. His general account of the movements of the troops goes back to a reliable, consistent diary, and from Beloch to Hignett to Greene, scholars believe this part of the story is credible.
The story of the self-sacrifice and Herodotus' look inside Leonidas' brain, however, belong to a part that he cannot have checked: those who were present and may have known the truth, were killed in action.
The break between these two parts is 7.219-7.220. 7.219 ends with Leonidas being abandoned by many allies. That's the last point of which Herodotus is certain.
7.220 is introduced with "legetai", it is said. This is Herodotus' usual formula when he offers information that he thinks is too important to ignore, but that does not belong to his main source or spokesman. This is followed by "in my opinion". Gnome in Herodotus always means that he is starting to offer a hypothesis, opposed to facts he could check (cf. 2.99, a quintessential section to understand Herodotus' method).
Herodotus now starts a new story, which flatly contradicts the first one: now Leonidas sends away the allies. The contradiction itself is not terribly important; what matters is that Herodotus does not present the second part of his story as a description of facts. He makes it absolutely clear that he is offering a hypothesis.
Quote:I think you have to be very careful when you suppose that you can give us a more accurate blow-by-blow version than Herodotus. You can't discount the story as legend,We must, because Herodotus himself says that it is a personal opinion. Just like Herodotus, we can only speculate.
