After the battle of Cunaxa, the Greek hoplites retired to a village. They had not had a decent meal for two days and were tired of the battle and a long march.
If I were a Persian king and wanted to get rid of these men, this would be the moment of my attack. The enemy was weak and in a street fight in a village, their heavy armor would make their movements slower. I would surround the village with cavalry, send in archers, I guess, and start clearing the village by destroying the houses. Dromedary dung and thatched roofs are vulnerable to fire.
What would you do? Am I wrong that the Persian king either missed a chance to get rid of his enemies or (as I think) did not want to destroy them, because he wanted to hire them?
I do not think that the Persians missed an opportunity. A village provides cover from missiles, so that few Greeks will be targets and many can rest at any given time, unlike a situation when a hoplite force is surrounded in the open. The lines of fire will be restricted once inside the village, so that if the fighting actually gets inside the village boundry, archers will have to be quite close to their targets to be able to target them - which means the archers will be vulnerable to a quick rush by the hoplites. Also, the cramped streets would hamper the ability of the lighter armed archers to run away from rushing hoplites, as opposed to an open field. (After all, these streets are not the boulevards of Paris.) The defenders would have the usual benefit of being able to get on rooftops and toss things down on anyone invading the streets.
Burning the village might have worked better, but would the roofs have been thatch? I always thought the roofs in that part of the world are flat, and covered in mud plaster. The walls, of course, were mud and may not have burned very well.
It seems to me the Greeks only lacked a decent meal on the day of the battle; according to Xenophon they slaughtered the baggage animals the next day and had at least some of the residual supplies from the pillaged camp.
But it looks to me like they only stopped in the village during the days maneuvering (1.10.4-16), when the King still had only a fraction of his army under his command a day were none of his troops showed much fight vs. the Greeks.
In the next passage the Greeks returned to the camp (presumably fortified?).
The Greek force was a bit more flexible than it ended up being The Thracians and Thessalians had not defected yet.
That's a lot of opinions, and I will think a lot about it. Some replies to minor points:
Code:
Burning the village might have worked better, but would the roofs have been thatch?
That is probably, because this is the river area, where reed was abundant. There are representations of these villages on Assyrian reliefs.
Quote:The walls, of course, were mud and may not have burned very well.
Let me betray a little secret: mud walls are not made of mud. I recall from the early days of
Archeon how archaeologists were making a mud wall for an Iron Age farm. First, they build the wall of reed and wood. Then, a mixture of 80% mud and 20% dung plus straw was used. Unfortunately, this was not sticky enough. Within months, the mixture was changed to 60/40 and 50/50. I think the result was, in the end, that a good, strong wall was made of 65% of dung, 35% of mud, plus straw.
That dung can burn like lightning, was unfortunately proven in
another archaeological park at Eindhoven. That's why I think that a wall made of dung can burn.
Quote:In the next passage the Greeks returned to the camp (presumably fortified?).
One of the great miracles of Xenophon: it seems that camps were almost never fortified. I do not know what to think of this. Peter Connolly accepts it as fact that camps were not surrounded by palisades. There is a story about Pyrrhus that he admired the camps of the Romans.
Look... Alexander The GREAT, was a HUGE man - not only for his time, but for ALL TIMES!
A superb general, a gifted/talented leader/colloquist and a STRONG king...
He was ALSO... a very DAMN LUCKY guy!!!
Extremely LUCKY, for my opinion! In many cases, he & his army would be completely destroyed, if he wasn't SO LUCKY and if his enemy (Persians) was NOT SO STUPID and SO COMPLETELY worthless strategic opponent!
I dissagree with you fellows; Persians made UNBELIEVABLE tactical mistakes!!!
I'll remind you one that came up in my mind; the GRANIKOUS RIVER's cross!
What a stupid behavior from the Persian part!!!
They LEFT Alexander The GREAT, completely FREE/untouched to cross the river, without USING their MAIN super-weapon (ARCHERS, guys... ARCHERS!), they LEFT him to climb the hard bank of the river (THEIR POSSITION!) and STILL LEFT him to attacked them!
Also, they had a SUPERB, WELL-TRAINNED and LARGE amount of MERCENARY HOPLITES,... NOT FORMED on the river bank to CRASH the Macedonian cavalry's charge,... but BEHIND the Persian Army, upon a... hill!!!
JESUS!!!
Not EVEN ME (a simple... sergeant in my military service!), I WOULDN'T do such a HUGE STUPID tactical mistake!
So... don't be negative to think that Persians, YES... they were STUPID enough as generalls and they DIDN'T took advantages in many cases...
That DOESN'T shrink Alexander The GREAT's SUPERB strategy and military mind!
But... things gone more... "easy" for Alexander The GREAT, because Persians' stupidity!
Regards...
Maybe Alexander scared them....or they had too much admiration and respect for him as a warrior.
Any king who led his men the way he did, must have roused some doubts in the enemy that he was either a total 'beserker' or a demiGod and under protection (as he obviously was)....a true descendant of Herakles!
While they stood there discussing the fact, he had reached them.... :lol: :lol:
I don't think I would have liked to face him on the battlefield....I can imagine him with a big grin on his face as he swooped towards you.... :twisted: hehe
regards
Arthes
Alexander The GREAT, in his FIRST military actions, was MORE a lucky/stubborn young hasty/sharp/trigger-happy fellow, than a wise general.
BECAUSE of this spirit of his, he... SURPISED the Persians and won.
But, durring his SUPERB campaign in Asia Minor, he gain RAPPIDLY a great amount of experiance and became a SUPERB general.
Regards my lady.
P.S.: I don't believe that these was/is/will be ANOTHER example of human race, DESERVED to be known as "GREAT"! To me, an... extraterrestrial theory's fan, he could be a SUPERIOR non-earth being. NO HUMAN ever succeed SO MANY MUCH, SO GREAT, in SO SHORT time... And I don't see HOW it will be another human like him...
Quote:Look... Alexander The GREAT, was a HUGE man
Yes, but what's that got to do with Cunaxa?
Quote:Quote:Look... Alexander The GREAT, was a HUGE man
Yes, but what's that got to do with Cunaxa?
You have probably noticed that there are people here who bring Alexander into the conversation sooner or later ..... :oops:
I think Lupus was making a comparison between the two incidents and the actions of the Persians....
Quote:Quote:Look... Alexander The GREAT, was a HUGE man
Yes, but what's that got to do with Cunaxa?
Ok... maybe I'm off-topic... back to topic.
BTW - thanks for the "support", my lady.
Quote: One of the great miracles of Xenophon: it seems that camps were almost never fortified. I do not know what to think of this. Peter Connolly accepts it as fact that camps were not surrounded by palisades. There is a story about Pyrrhus that he admired the camps of the Romans.
Interesting point, I am not quite sure what to say with respect to Xenophon, but he does have a tendency to drop or ignore things that don’t interest him (often very significant things at that).
The Persians do seem to have fortified their camps however (Herodotus 9.65/70 for example), and relative contemporaries of Xenophon like Iphicrates (Polyaenus 3.9.17) and Phokion (at Tamynai Plutarch life of Phokion) are also noted has having built fortified camps. Not that it answers your question but it might explain why the Persians did not attack – Persians troops with no stomach for fighting the Greeks and A fortified camp that Xenophon did not feel worth mentioning.
Quote:Interesting point, I am not quite sure what to say with respect to Xenophon, but he does have a tendency to drop or ignore things that don’t interest him (often very significant things at that).
Every SINGLE historic DOES that, my dear fellow; indeed!
Regards.
Quote:Every SINGLE historic DOES that, my dear fellow; indeed!
Too true, but some of Xenophon's are extreamly significant and don't nesscarily fit with general trend of his narative.
Yea... I guess Xenophon was NOTHING more, but a... "grunt", an ancient "G.I.", keeping a diary...
BTW - I'm DEEPLY respecting Xenophon!!!
Let me betray a little secret: mud walls are not made of mud. I recall from the early days of Archeon how archaeologists were making a mud wall for an Iron Age farm. First, they build the wall of reed and wood. Then, a mixture of 80% mud and 20% dung plus straw was used. Unfortunately, this was not sticky enough. Within months, the mixture was changed to 60/40 and 50/50. I think the result was, in the end, that a good, strong wall was made of 65% of dung, 35% of mud, plus straw. "
If I may say so, that was a case of building a wall in a much damper climate than Iraq (I think that is where Cunaxa was actually fought?). I do not have personal experience with mud brick, but have seen the process as carried out in Egypt, also New Mexico and California; all of which more closely resemble the climate of Iraq. The walls are not wattle and daub, as seems the case in Archeon. The walls are of adobe brick, which is mostly mud, with some straw, and no dung that I remember. You will recall that the account of Exodus refers to the Hebrews building bricks of mud, without straw (and no mention of dung at all). Mud doesn't burn very well, and the limited amount of straw in mud bricks is well insulated by the mud and protected from oxygen as well.