Arrian

[eugene]

Was Arrian among the greatest ancient military historians or a mere compilator?
Are there any books or articles which research such aspect as "Arrian as a military historian"?

[Jona Lendering]

Was Arrian among the greatest ancient military historians or a mere compilator?

I think this is not a case of either... or... He was not among the greatest, but not a mere compilator. Somewhere in between, I'd say.

Compiler he never was. The Ektaxis is an original work; so is the Periplus, although that's not a military work. The Anabasis is based upon three main sources (although he mentions only Ptolemy and Aristobulus, Nearchus is equally important in the second half), but he is telling his own story, only noting when there are variant accounts. A compiler follows just one source.

Yet, I think he is inferior to Cassius Dio and Polybius, who are among the very greatest. I think he's the equal of people like Thucydides and Tacitus: good writing, but too profound and philosophical to be adequate historians.

[Paralus]

Are there any books or articles which research such aspect as "Arrian as a military historian"?

Do you have access to Jstor or an academic library?

There are no articles - that I'm aware of - on Arrian as a military historian. There are quite a few on Arrian and his writings - mostly concerning the Anabasis. Bosworth's commentary is the work. He also has discussed various aspects of Arrian's writings in papers (Errors in Arrian and Arrian at the Caspian Gates: a study in Methodology for example. Stadter's The Ars Tactica of Arrian: Tradition and Originality might also be of interest. There are other, more specific "military" papers, that are available. Milns' Arrian's Accuracy in Troop Details: A Note being an example. I have the above if they interest you.

I'd agree with Jona: he is quite capable of writing his own original material. Indeed he claims he's the "greatest thing since sliced bread" at the outset of the Anabasis and he clearly shapes his material to make his own points. Whilst Diodorus, too, does this (especially for his fascination with the application of "good" laws and the "outrageous" turns of fortune or tyche) he is nowhere as lucid as Arrian and, rather than being a matter of his own composition, it is more a matter of selection of material.

Thucydides may have been better - we have only the unfinished single work by which to judge. The unrevised nature of the last book of that work, unfortunately, provides for immense frustration. To me it is hard to credit that Thucydides seemingly so failed to understand the importance of the Athenian and, more so, Spartan relations with Persia. Perhaps, had he lived to polish and finish this book, we may have had something more resembling his treatment of the Sicilian disaster.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yet, I think he is inferior to Cassius Dio and Polybius, who are among the very greatest. I think he's the equal of people like Thucydides and Tacitus: good writing, but too profound and philosophical to be adequate historians.

I thought it was Thucydides who was the first to write a history based on his obsevations of what he saw and what he learned from others who had witnessed the events he was writing about? Herodtus who was the more philosiphical.... :? ?

[Jona Lendering]

I thought it was Thucydides who was the first to write a history based on his obsevations of what he saw and what he learned from others who had witnessed the events he was writing about? Herodtus who was the more philosiphical.... :? ?

No, the other way round. Herodotus makes it a methodological point to separate what he has seen from what he has heard and what he thinks. Look at

2.99
Hitherto my own observation and judgment and inquiry are the vouchers for that which I have said; but from this point onwards I am about to tell the history of Egypt according to that which I heard, to which will be added also something of that which I have myself seen.

2.123.1
Now as to the tales told by the Egyptians, any man may accept them to whom such things appear credible; as for me, it is to be understood throughout the whole of the history[103] that I write by hearsay that which is reported by the people in each place.

3.122.1
Te cause then of the death of Polycrates is reported in these two different ways, and we may believe whichever of them we please.

7.152.3
I however am bound to report that which is reported, though I am not bound altogether to believe it.

**

You will not find something like this in Thucydides. He presents what he believes are the facts and never explains how he arrived upon them. His interest is not historical truth but human psychology and moralism; in this, he is like Tacitus.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Guess I need to re-read these guys again, it's been a few years....Thanks.