04-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Paul MS,
Two good points, but its also important to consider that Herodotus shows no qualms about commenting when he feels that the statements he has recorded are of dubious authenticity or propoganda, such as the attempt by some Athenians to brand the Alcaeomenidae as the traitors who raised the shield at Marathon.
Even if the case is overstated, it doesn't diminish the significance of the Athenian victory over the Persians. Its a really big deal, and enough that a decade later the Spartans are willing to give precedence to the Athenians for it over their more traiditional allies, the Tegeans at Tegea. These are the same Spartans who doubt their own ability against the Persians enough to suggest swapping positions with the Athenians.
So the Athenians certainly did something exceptional at Marathon, and Herodotus comment that the Athenians were the first that, "we know of" to charge at a run against the enemy is also significant. This is pretty outrageous if it had been common practice for over a century, as you suggest, yet doesn't even draw a whimper from the frequently suspicious chronicler. In addition, using a collective "we" is also a lot more powerful than his usual "I" seems to be a statement that this is a more widely held view.
That being the case, I don't believe it is outrageous to theorize that hoplite warfare and the phalanx is still evolving at the end of the archaic period. And if it is still evolving, there is room to accept the possibility that there are holdovers to older styles of combat and older pieces of equipment.
And the gold digging ants/termites/marmots/whatever, are very much on point. If outrageous details of Herodotus' inquiries can be found to have a basis in fact, we must consider the possibility that other statements are also credible in the absence of hard evidence to support or refute them.
Have fun!
Cole
Two good points, but its also important to consider that Herodotus shows no qualms about commenting when he feels that the statements he has recorded are of dubious authenticity or propoganda, such as the attempt by some Athenians to brand the Alcaeomenidae as the traitors who raised the shield at Marathon.
Even if the case is overstated, it doesn't diminish the significance of the Athenian victory over the Persians. Its a really big deal, and enough that a decade later the Spartans are willing to give precedence to the Athenians for it over their more traiditional allies, the Tegeans at Tegea. These are the same Spartans who doubt their own ability against the Persians enough to suggest swapping positions with the Athenians.
So the Athenians certainly did something exceptional at Marathon, and Herodotus comment that the Athenians were the first that, "we know of" to charge at a run against the enemy is also significant. This is pretty outrageous if it had been common practice for over a century, as you suggest, yet doesn't even draw a whimper from the frequently suspicious chronicler. In addition, using a collective "we" is also a lot more powerful than his usual "I" seems to be a statement that this is a more widely held view.
That being the case, I don't believe it is outrageous to theorize that hoplite warfare and the phalanx is still evolving at the end of the archaic period. And if it is still evolving, there is room to accept the possibility that there are holdovers to older styles of combat and older pieces of equipment.
And the gold digging ants/termites/marmots/whatever, are very much on point. If outrageous details of Herodotus' inquiries can be found to have a basis in fact, we must consider the possibility that other statements are also credible in the absence of hard evidence to support or refute them.
Have fun!
Cole
Cole
