06-02-2009, 10:20 PM
Paullus places far too much faith in a sainted Xenophon. Xenephon had little interest in praising neither Thebes nor it generals and their tactics. The venom and bias are readily apparent in the Leuktra battle description. The generals are not given names and the Thebans succeeded due to the fact that the Spartan’s weak cavalry disrupted their lines. As well, for the Thebans, the gods bestowed all the gifts of fortune whilst nothing went prosperously for the Spartans.
Both Plutarch Diodorus ascribe the victory to the “weight” of the Theban’s loaded wing and oblique attack. Xenophon would have us believe that the Spartans were winning when it is clear in the other accounts that they were always under pressure for this reason.
Plutarch, for once interested in the battle, describes the Spartan attempt to extend their wing so as to attempt to envelop the Thebans. One can only suggest this further thinned their depth – a depth no more than 12 – thus adding to the possibility of the inevitable breakthrough.
In all, Xenophon’s treatment of the battle is almost laughably exculpatory of the Spartans. It is their allies who deserted and the cavalry who caused this defeat. Relying on him we not know that the allies were not engaged as Epaminondas had refused his line in an oblique and only engaged the Spartan right. These tactics are too difficult to write down for Xenophon.
Probably the most cogent description in Xenophon’s account is the closing remark that the allies “were not even displeased at what had taken place”.
Paul Bardunias has dealt with the furphy that those not shoving spears in a phalanx are “not participating” in any way. As has Polybios. The exaggeration – for effect –that any behind those able to use spears are “taking no part” is specious.
Both Plutarch Diodorus ascribe the victory to the “weight” of the Theban’s loaded wing and oblique attack. Xenophon would have us believe that the Spartans were winning when it is clear in the other accounts that they were always under pressure for this reason.
Plutarch, for once interested in the battle, describes the Spartan attempt to extend their wing so as to attempt to envelop the Thebans. One can only suggest this further thinned their depth – a depth no more than 12 – thus adding to the possibility of the inevitable breakthrough.
In all, Xenophon’s treatment of the battle is almost laughably exculpatory of the Spartans. It is their allies who deserted and the cavalry who caused this defeat. Relying on him we not know that the allies were not engaged as Epaminondas had refused his line in an oblique and only engaged the Spartan right. These tactics are too difficult to write down for Xenophon.
Probably the most cogent description in Xenophon’s account is the closing remark that the allies “were not even displeased at what had taken place”.
Paul Bardunias has dealt with the furphy that those not shoving spears in a phalanx are “not participating” in any way. As has Polybios. The exaggeration – for effect –that any behind those able to use spears are “taking no part” is specious.
Paralus|Michael Park
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους
Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!
Academia.edu
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους
Wicked men, you are sinning against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander!
Academia.edu
