07-07-2009, 04:56 AM
All of which I knew prior to posting and none of which negates the clear and explicit attestation that these arms were Cyrus'. There is no need at all of the phrase "for he says they belong to him since they belonged to Cyrus" if he is repeating a claim based simply on defeat on the battlefield.
The notion that the bulk of these mercenaries had their arms supplied by Cyrus is not new and in fact goes back to Roy ("Mercenaries of Cyrus" Hist. 16 1967). It has more recently been restated by McKechnie ("Greek Mercenary Troops and Their Equipment" Hist. 43 1994)
That Cyrus could supply such goes without saying: he had recently supplied Sparta the means of defeating Athens. This meant ships, sailors, rigging and, of course, money. So, if he did, what do you reckon he supplied them with?
The notion that the bulk of these mercenaries had their arms supplied by Cyrus is not new and in fact goes back to Roy ("Mercenaries of Cyrus" Hist. 16 1967). It has more recently been restated by McKechnie ("Greek Mercenary Troops and Their Equipment" Hist. 43 1994)
That Cyrus could supply such goes without saying: he had recently supplied Sparta the means of defeating Athens. This meant ships, sailors, rigging and, of course, money. So, if he did, what do you reckon he supplied them with?
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
