Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Boiotian Shield
#16
Cole wrote:
Quote:It is a speculative position, based on the arguments in my previous post.

......thus far we are in agreement then! Smile D

Quote:- tapered spear shafts
- deeply bowled aspides
- the shape and drape of the chitoniskos

And thats just to name a few.
...the deep-bowled aspis is evidenced by surviving bronze facings ( e.g. the Vatican shields - there are at least two). Spear shafts and Chitons, being organic, have not thus far survived in the archaeological record.....

I don't have a viewpoint on the existence circa 500 BC of the so-called "Boeotian" shield, but given Hoplite tactics, I doubt it, unless it took the form of the circular shield with cutouts at the side to look vaguely like the 'Heroic' type....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#17
Paul wrote:
>I don't have a viewpoint on the existence circa 500 BC of the so-called "Boeotian" shield,
>but given Hoplite tactics, I doubt it, unless it took the form of the circular shield with
>cutouts at the side to look vaguely like the 'Heroic' type....

I think it has been argued that the hoplite "revolution" is still ongoing around 500 BC, and if that is the case there is good reason to view the shield as an artifact of "heroic" as opposed to "hoplite" combat still occuring in the period.

A good example of this is the scene in Herodotus on the retaking of Cyprus is the combat between Onesilus and Artybius:

"To this his henchman answered, “My King, ready am I to do either or both, whatever you desire. Nevertheless, I will tell you what I think is in your best interest. [4] To my mind, a king and general should be met in battle by a king and general (For if you lay low a man who is a general, you have achieved a great feat. Failing that, if he lays you low, as I pray he may not, it is but half the misfortune to be slain by a noble enemy). For us servants it is fitting that we fight with servants like ourselves and with that horse. Do not fear his tricks, for I promise that he will never again do battle with any man.” (Hdt. 5.111, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... pter%3D111 )

If, as from examples like this, we can see that heroic combat is still a factor in the period, the possibility of the shield surviving for heroic combat seems like a reasonable position to hold.

Have fun!
Cole
Cole
Reply
#18
Quote:What do you think of the suggestion that the dyplon and boetian shield never existed. It was suggested by Webster back in the 50's that

Oops, forgot about that because I don't believe it. I think the earlier Dipylon was real, but a center-grip shield, while the later Boeotian, with porpax and antilabe, did not exist as a true war shield. As a matter of art, Greek artist add porpaxes to pelta all the time. Is there any archaeological evidence for a porpax and antilabe on a pelta circa 500BC? I'm unable to find an answer for that.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#19
Cole wrote:
Quote:I think it has been argued that the hoplite "revolution" is still ongoing around 500 BC,

....I think that must be a rather dubious proposition at best. The 'common opinion' is that phalanx/Hoplite warfare was introduced to Greece in the 8C. BC, following the introduction of the 'Argive' aspis, though some revisionists have suggested a date as recent as the 7C.BC. Originally, the Hoplites seem to have used two dual-purpose throwing/thrusting spears (longche), which was replaced by the 'Great Spear' (dory). Certainly 'full blown' Phalanx warfare in the classic sense is shown on the Chigi vase of c. 650 BC, which means that any 'revolution' was complete by then. The men carry aspides, a single spear (dory) which they grasp to thrust, though spears with throwing loops in pairs are shown propped up in an arming scene. They are in formed lines and run into battle together in step ( incidently throwing doubt on the Athenian claim to be the first to do so at Marathon).

Certainly I don't doubt that change continued throughout the period. Equipment altered, drill/tactics ( the two were almost synonymous) grew more sophisticated etc, but this was an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one.

As to the scene you refer to in Herodotus, during the Persian recapture of Cyprus, it was a common-place in our ancient sources to describe 'Heroic Duels' taking place in the midst of battle between Opposing Commanders, right down to Alexander and later still Roman times. However, how many of these are historical is a thorny question, and certainly nowhere do we hear of special duelling equipment being used......

These two pieces of 'evidence' you put forward do not at all suggest the existence of a 'Boeotian' shield to me.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#20
Quote:Cole wrote:
Quote:I think it has been argued that the hoplite "revolution" is still ongoing around 500 BC,

....I think that must be a rather dubious proposition at best. The 'common opinion' is that phalanx/Hoplite warfare was introduced to Greece in the 8C. BC, following the introduction of the 'Argive' aspis, though some revisionists have suggested a date as recent as the 7C.BC. Originally, the Hoplites seem to have used two dual-purpose throwing/thrusting spears (longche), which was replaced by the 'Great Spear' (dory). Certainly 'full blown' Phalanx warfare in the classic sense is shown on the Chigi vase of c. 650 BC, which means that any 'revolution' was complete by then. The men carry aspides, a single spear (dory) which they grasp to thrust, though spears with throwing loops in pairs are shown propped up in an arming scene. They are in formed lines and run into battle together in step ( incidently throwing doubt on the Athenian claim to be the first to do so at Marathon).

See Hans van Wees, "The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century" for this. He is one of, if not the strongest proponents of the existence of the Boeotian shield and the late development of the phalanx, and he addresses just about all of your points, especially the Chigi vase and the other depictions of warfare which have been pointed to as evidence of the phalanx being in use in the seventh century. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I think his main point - that the iconographic evidence does not prove that the phalanx in the sense that Thucydides knew it was in use at this time, and that the literary evidence shows that such phalanx combat was not known by the time of Tyrtaeus - is an important one and well made. He also makes a few good points about the general use of the Argive shield which a lot of people seem to miss. As he points out, the men on the Chigi vase all carry two spears - the second ones, held in their shield hands, are very faded, but are still visible on good reproductions of the vases.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#21
Ruben wrote:
Quote:See Hans van Wees, "The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century" for this. He is one of, if not the strongest proponents of the existence of the Boeotian shield and the late development of the phalanx, and he addresses just about all of your points, especially the Chigi vase and the other depictions of warfare which have been pointed to as evidence of the phalanx being in use in the seventh century. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I think his main point - that the iconographic evidence does not prove that the phalanx in the sense that Thucydides knew it was in use at this time, and that the literary evidence shows that such phalanx combat was not known by the time of Tyrtaeus - is an important one and well made. He also makes a few good points about the general use of the Argive shield which a lot of people seem to miss. As he points out, the men on the Chigi vase all carry two spears - the second ones, held in their shield hands, are very faded, but are still visible on good reproductions of the vases.
....I would agree that that the evidence for this period is indeed scarce, with little literature save epic poems such as Tyrtaeus - whose work is cited more frequently FOR the existence of Phalanx warfare than against, and not much iconography either. I am afraid I am not a fan of Van Wees, finding that I often disagree with his conclusions. His "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities" is often referred to as 'revolutionary' yet contains nothing not already well-known, though perhaps re-emphasising these things was timely, and also has it's fair share of 'howlers' e.g. "( the trireme)... was the sole fighting vessel in the Mediterranean for several centuries, with some slight modifications." - totally wrong!

As to whether the men on the Chigi vase carry one or two spears, that is not relevant to the point I made, namely that most if not all the salient features of full-blown Phalanx warfare seem to be present in that depiction.Of course it is possible, given the limited means of the medium to argue otherwise but as we know, that is true of almost all our ancient evidence.... :wink: :?

On balance of probability, I believe the Chigi vase was intended to, and does, depict Phalanx warfare ( Van Wees and others notwithstanding)
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#22
Quote:Ruben wrote:
Quote:See Hans van Wees, "The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx: Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century" for this. He is one of, if not the strongest proponents of the existence of the Boeotian shield and the late development of the phalanx, and he addresses just about all of your points, especially the Chigi vase and the other depictions of warfare which have been pointed to as evidence of the phalanx being in use in the seventh century. While I disagree with some of his conclusions, I think his main point - that the iconographic evidence does not prove that the phalanx in the sense that Thucydides knew it was in use at this time, and that the literary evidence shows that such phalanx combat was not known by the time of Tyrtaeus - is an important one and well made. He also makes a few good points about the general use of the Argive shield which a lot of people seem to miss. As he points out, the men on the Chigi vase all carry two spears - the second ones, held in their shield hands, are very faded, but are still visible on good reproductions of the vases.
....I would agree that that the evidence for this period is indeed scarce, with little literature save epic poems such as Tyrtaeus - whose work is cited more frequently FOR the existence of Phalanx warfare than against, and not much iconography either. I am afraid I am not a fan of Van Wees, finding that I often disagree with his conclusions. His "Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities" is often referred to as 'revolutionary' yet contains nothing not already well-known, though perhaps re-emphasising these things was timely, and also has it's fair share of 'howlers' e.g. "( the trireme)... was the sole fighting vessel in the Mediterranean for several centuries, with some slight modifications." - totally wrong!

On balance of probability, I believe the Chigi vase was intended to, and does, depict Phalanx warfare ( Van Wees and others notwithstanding)

I am apprehensive of many of his bolder claims as well, but I would recommend that you nonetheless give it a read, even just to make you reconsider which aspects of the evidence do indicate phalanx combat and which don't. What I primarily took away from his article is that what needs to be better defined is the transition between Homeric/Dark Age combat and the rise of the phalanx. For instance, how exactly did the phalanx integrate light troops, as Tyrtaeus writes about, and when did this practice end?

Quote:As to whether the men on the Chigi vase carry one or two spears, that is not relevant to the point I made, namely that most if not all the salient features of full-blown Phalanx warfare seem to be present in that depiction.Of course it is possible, given the limited means of the medium to argue otherwise but as we know, that is true of almost all our ancient evidence.... :wink: :?

I was just pointing out that all the men do actually carry two spears, and so the two depicted in the arming scene on the far left are not just an anomaly.
Ruben

He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Reply
#23
Ruben wrote:
Quote:For instance, how exactly did the phalanx integrate light troops, as Tyrtaeus writes about, and when did this practice end?

..an interesting point, and one is tempted to suggest that if Tyrtaeus is speaking of a 'transitional' period ( and let us not digress into the minefield of interpreting Tyrtaeus, or trying to untangle when he refers to contemporary, as opposed to 'Heroic' practise.....all but impossible given we have mostly fragments/incomplete works, only 3 being possibly complete); then I would say; when the Phalanx began to fight in 'close order' , which is not inconsistent with Tyrtaeus' reference to light troops launching stone, missiles etc from behind the shelter of their Master's shields.

I have written in another thread of my hypothesis that the Phalanx moved etc in 'normal/open' order on the battlefield, only closing up for the charge/move into contact. Light troops often skirmished in front before withdrawing through the spaced ranks prior to the 'closing up'.They could easily continue lauching missiles in this phase, as Tyrtaeus describes.....we hear elsewhere of servants aiding their Masters on the battlefield e.g. in the Herodotus piece quoted by Cole
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#24
Paul wrote:
>....I think that must be a rather dubious proposition at best. The 'common opinion' is
>that phalanx/Hoplite warfare was introduced to Greece in the 8C. BC, following the
>introduction of the 'Argive' aspis, though some revisionists have suggested a date as
>recent as the 7C.BC. Originally, the Hoplites seem to have used two dual-purpose
>throwing/thrusting spears (longche), which was replaced by the 'Great Spear' (dory).
>Certainly 'full blown' Phalanx warfare in the classic sense is shown on the Chigi vase of
>c. 650 BC, which means that any 'revolution' was complete by then. The men carry
>aspides, a single spear (dory) which they grasp to thrust, though spears with throwing
>loops in pairs are shown propped up in an arming scene.

That depends on how you look at it. The Chigi vase (which could be as late as 625 BCE) can easily be argued as showing nothing that isn't consistent with Homeric/Heroic combat. Homer himself, in describing the Myrmidions saving themselves from raging Hector by forming up in close order and keeping him off with a hedge of spears and a wall of shields shows that small groups of men would form closely to better protect themselves. The groups men depicted on the Chigi vase could be nothing more than that.

In fact, at the point where the two groups are fighting the left hand group may not be formed in a straight line. While there are four heads and shields, there are ten legs, so somebody's out of place Smile And this is the side with the aulos player, who is supposedly keeping them in order.

You have to make a completely unsubstantiated leap of faith to argue that they depict entire phalanxes marching in step, a leap not supported by materials contemporary to the vase.

Its also worth noting that the vase also depicts cavalry, charioteers, and heroic single combat in the second band, which would seem to dilute its value as an early poster child for the hoplite revolution.

>They are in formed lines and run into battle together in step ( incidently throwing doubt
>on the Athenian claim to be the first to do so at Marathon).

The Chigi vase shows groups running to catch up with other groups already in combat. Are they rear ranks, or other groups which are running up to form a front in a syncopated fashion? There are figures still arming up, which would further tend to support an interpretation of groups coming into battle in a erratic fashion.

This in now way throws doubt on Herodotus' (who its worth noting wasn't an Athenian) statement:

"When they had been set in order and the sacrifices were favorable, the Athenians were sent forth and charged the foreigners at a run. The space between the armies was no less than eight stadia. The Persians saw them running to attack and prepared to receive them, thinking the Athenians absolutely crazy, since they saw how few of them there were and that they ran up so fast without either cavalry or archers. So the foreigners imagined, but when the Athenians all together fell upon the foreigners they fought in a way worthy of record. These are the first Hellenes whom we know of to use running against the enemy. They are also the first to endure looking at Median dress and men wearing it, for up until then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic. "

The Athenians ran into contact, something not shown in the Chigi vase, as the figures in contact are standing and fighting, and they are not tightly packed as they would be if they charged into contact. There is also very good reason for standing the same way. Behind a shield your shield side leg can be protected by the shield, so it leads, your off leg, which cannot readily be protected by the shield, must be tucked back safely out of reach. So I have a hard time buying the argument that they must have gotten there by marching in step.

So, as charging into contact is a new thing in 490, and is later a staple of hoplite combat, I'd say i'm not outside the box in saying the hoplite revolution is still underway in 490 BCE.

Have fun,
Cole
Cole
Reply
#25
The very idea of a 'phalanx' i.e. ordered ranks of men in combat seemingly goes back to Sumerian times, let alone Homer !

One can also read whatever one wants into the Chigi vase depiction, as I've already said.....but the obvious interpretation is that it shows men arming for battle, followed by a charge into contact, followed by the combat between two foes i.e. 'phalanx warfare'.......of course, following the 'collision' men are no longer running/charging !

Even if Herodotus' statement repeating Athenian propaganda (" these were the first [Hellenes] to endure looking at Median dress and the men wearing it, for up to then just hearing the name of the Medes caused the Hellenes to panic") were to be true, and it is patently not ( ask any Ionian ! ) it has been shown that the idea of Hoplites charging over 8 stades ( 1600 yards - almost a mile) is an obvious exaggeration. To claim that a "Hoplite revolution" was still on-going on the basis of this one propaganda statement is stretching credulity.

In essence, the Chigi vase illustrates what Herodotus writes of as occurring at Marathon - the Hoplites form up in line and charge into contact in a formed body....it really doesn't matter whether the 'in step' is an artistic convention or whatever. To argue that the process of Hoplite/phalanx warfare is not shown on the Chigi vase is a form of 'special pleading'. If one adopts a holistic approach, instead of examining single bits of evidence the probable likelihood is clear. For example, Spartan tradition had it that they adopted "Phalanx/Hoplite' warfare c. 750 BC during a war with Amyclae . There is more in this regard too which points to a similar date. The rise of Phalnx/Hoplite warfare is linked to the rise of the poleis/city-state.....
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#26
Quote:In essence, the Chigi vase illustrates what Herodotus writes of as occurring at Marathon - the Hoplites form up in line and charge into contact in a formed body....it really doesn't matter whether the 'in step' is an artistic convention or whatever.

This is a very important point that I am going to extrapolate probably beyond what Paul is comfortable with. :wink: I think we have created a largely artificial divide between "phalanx" combat and what came before. We do this because we look at the derived phalanx of the 4th C and compare it what was written by Homer, missing all the evolution in between. At exactly what point does it become a "phalanx?" If leaders are standing in front of a mass of close ordered men while throwing longche at each other its not a "phalanx", but the moment they step back and charge with the group it becomes a phalanx. When groups of men are fighting over the fallen body of a hero, undoubtably shoving with their shields by the way, they easily fit the description of a small phalanx.

Does forming up in lines of men make it a phalanx? It seems irrelevent to me whether they formed in a line of neat little rectangles or a series of men massed by tribes in mobs like a string of beads. They surely formed a "line" on contact with the enemy either way. How did the Zulu form their "lines"- surely to a greek writer they would have looked like a phalanx. What of the Germanic board-weals, what was their drill and rank system and how did they move from opened to close order? The neat lines and drill are not relevent to the definition of a phalanx in the broad sense or to the type of massed combat that has been argued to spur or result from yeoman farmers and Polis citizens and democratic ideas, etc.

Even in the later period the uniformity of the phalanxes battle line was an illusion. Ranks were not of uniform depth between and often within units, and cohesion was always much higher within units than it was between them. When they charged, they did so as units, not as a single perfectly ordered line, more importantly, when they broke they did so as individual units. You don't read of "the five ranks of Argives on the right stood firm with the Athenian unit beside them while the rest of the Argives fled." Men who charged at a run did not arrive in a close-packed phalanx with proper spacing at the end of the charge. Thus, it is irrelevent to the combat if they began their charge from ordered ranks, though it surely makes moving men around easier and was undoubtably quite useful to the leaders.

So what makes a hoplite phalanx different from all other battle-lines of massed men? Nothing, unless they are doing something that these other battle-lines cannot. I'll leave it to you to decide what that is. Whatever "that" is, it is the evolution of this factor of hoplite combat that is the driving force between the derived Hoplite phalanx and any old battle-line, not the way they are formed.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#27
Paul B,

My feelings on the subject tend in your direction. I see signs of evolution of hoplite combat in the written sources of rection of phalanx combat in Homer and the account of the Myrmidions fighting Hector, through Herodotus and Marathon and Plataea, Thucydides's accounts of Peloponnesian war, and Xenophon's Hellenica, Anabasis, and so forth. With regards to the subject of shields, I see the boiotian shield as an artifact of less formed heroic combat that either evolved into the aspis as it was reinforced to support the needs of the phalanx, or died out as the place for heroic combat was minimized. For my own part, the end of the archaic seems a likely candidate for this time, as the shield slowly disappears from art until it merely becomes a symbol on a coin.

Be that as it may, its only a theory, but not an unreasonable one to my mind.

Now, Paul MS, you've gotten a bit disingenuous in your arguments. The Ionians did indeed fight the Persians, and they were slapped silly time and again, often because some of the Greeks lost their nerve and panicked and either buggered off or switched sides.

Even the putative victory at Sardis which they suckered the Athenians into helping them with was a bad showing. Their surprise was fumbled, the Persians held the citadel against much superior numbers and they had to settle for accidentally burning the whole town.

So it is hardly propoganda when Herodotus says that the Athenians were the first to face the Medes and not panic. Outnumbered, nervous, half the generals having serious reservations about being there in the first place they pull it together and do the deed.

So, all that said, I do tend to believe H when he tells us the Athenians were the first to run into contact. Besides, he was right about the gold digging ants, so I'm willing to cut him some slack. Its not like there's a better source.

Cole,
Going to bed now.
Cole
Reply
#28
Code:
gold digging ants

Why do ants get all the credit! They are in fact gold-digging termites. They dig deep in search of ground-water or to extend tunnels and move the tailings up onto the outer surface of their mounds. People are currently using the presence of gold on the mounds of African termites to search for gold.
Paul M. Bardunias
MODERATOR: [url:2dqwu8yc]http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=4100[/url]
A Spartan, being asked a question, answered "No." And when the questioner said, "You lie," the Spartan said, "You see, then, that it is stupid of you to ask questions to which you already know the answer!"
Reply
#29
Paul B,

LOL! A French scholars argues H's gold digging ants (which are described as being the size of small dogs and furry) are actually a kind of Asian Marmot that behaves pretty much as H describes Smile ) Ant's Gold, 1982)

That is pretty cool about the Termites though! Trust the biologist to know Smile

Cole
Cole
Reply
#30
Nikolaos/Cole wrote:
Quote:The Chigi vase shows groups running to catch up with other groups already in combat. Are they rear ranks, or other groups which are running up to form a front in a syncopated fashion? There are figures still arming up, which would further tend to support an interpretation of groups coming into battle in a erratic fashion.
...like I said, the scene is open to interpretation, and could just as easily represent three sequences in time - arming up, the charge and then the combat. The presence of the Aulos player to set a rhythm, also adds weight to the idea of an organised body of men acting together - i.e. a phalanx.

Quote:Now, Paul MS, you've gotten a bit disingenuous in your arguments. The Ionians did indeed fight the Persians, and they were slapped silly time and again, often because some of the Greeks lost their nerve and panicked and either buggered off or switched sides.

Even the putative victory at Sardis which they suckered the Athenians into helping them with was a bad showing. Their surprise was fumbled, the Persians held the citadel against much superior numbers and they had to settle for accidentally burning the whole town.

So it is hardly propoganda when Herodotus says that the Athenians were the first to face the Medes and not panic.
I don't think I am being disingenuous at all. Herodotus several time speaks of the courage of the Ionians in their doomed battles with the Persians under Harpagus. Thanks to Persian siege skills in the form of earth ramps, raised under cover of massed archery the cities fell one by one.
Here are some examples of Ionians fighting bravely - these Hellenes did not panic at the mere sight of Median dress !
Herodotus I.169:
Quote:These alone of all the Ionians left their native cities because they would not endure subjection: but all the other Ionians except the Milesians did indeed contend in arms with Harpagos as the Phocaeans and Teians had done, and proved themselves brave men, fighting each for his own native city; but in spite of acts of great courage in defence of their homes they were defeated; their towns taken and they were forced to submit to their new masters.

....and this for a terrible example of desperate courage....

I.176:
Quote:After a time the Pedasians were conquered; and the Lykians, when Harpagos marched his army into the plain of Xanthos, came out against him and fought, few against many, and displayed proofs of valour; but being defeated and confined within their city, they gathered together into the citadel their wives and their children, their property and their servants, and after that they set fire to this citadel, so that it was all in flames, and having done so and sworn terrible oaths with one another, they went forth against the enemy and were slain in fight, that is to say all the men of Xanthos

Of course, some tamely submitted, or, like the Phocaeans, departed West and abanded their city, but as Herodotus tells us, many fought bravely.....

You've pointed out that Herodotus himself wasn't Athenian, but importantly, his sources for Marathon were , and the statement about Athenians being the first Hellenes not to panic facing Median dress is surely Athenian propaganda,their proud boast, faithfully reproduced by Herodotus ("It is my principle that I ought to repeat what is said; but I am not bound always to believe it" ), especially in light of what Herodotus himself tells us about about the bravery of many of the Ionians.
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply


Forum Jump: