Anabasis, Book 1, Ch. 8 - Battle of Cunaxa

This is it, the climactic battle, known as the Battle of Cunaxa, although Xenophon himself didn’t use the name.

Cyrus has led his Greek mercenary army all the way from Sardis (in western Asia Minor) to the outskirts of Babylon. While comparatively few, the Greek hoplites, heavily armored, and keeping in closely–packed and well-ordered phalanxes were nearly invulnerable in the ancient world. So, here in the critical battle, the Greeks prevailed on their part of the field.

But, like in chess, knocking off the enemy’s king was what mattered. Since Clearchus had not taken his Greek forces into the center, and also because Cyrus behaved rashly, he was killed in close combat with Artaxerxes bodyguards.

So, while this battle is the end of Cyrus, it is really the beginning of the epic. With their leader (and sole pupose of their expedition) dead, there are the Greeks, deep in hostile territory. But I get ahead of myself.

The Battle of Cunaxa:

The battle lines were no less than 3 or 4 stadia (~2000 meters) apart from each other when the Greeks, singing the paean, began to advance against the enemy. And when moving forward, some of the line surged ahead, so those left behind began to come on at a run. At the same time, they all shouted a war cry, of the sort they raise to Enyalius (Ares/Mars), and they were all running. Some say they shouted and banged their spears against their shields, creating fear amongst the horses. Before an arrow could reach its mark, the barbarians fell back, and then broke and ran. Then the Greeks pursued them furiously, while shouting to each other not to make it a race, but to stay in formation. The war-chariots were being carried without drivers, some through the enemy lines, others through the Hellenes. When the Greeks saw them coming, they would open ranks. and one was even captured, like a runaway in the hippodrome. And indeed, they said that none of the Greeks anywhere were injured, except on the left, where it was said someone was hit by an arrow.

Cyrus, seeing the Greek defeating their opponents and pursuing them, although pleased and already being saluted as King by those around him, did not impetuously pursue, but, keeping in close formation his own troop of 600 cavalry, watched to see what the King would do. And he saw that he was with the center of the Persian army. The Persian leaders customarily stayed in the center when they were in command, believing that to be the safest place, rather than on either flank. Also, when giving an order, the army would receive it in half the time. So, at this moment, the King was in the center of his army, but even so, overlapped the Greeks’ left wing. When no no from the opposite side engaged him and his forward formations, he wheeled his battle line around, so as to outflank them.

Then Cyrus, fearing that he might get behind him and cut down the Greeks, moved against those opposite him, and charging with his 600, defeated the King’s troops, and put the 6,000 to flight, and even killed (supposedly by his own hand) their commander, Artagerses.But as the retreat began, Cyrus’ 600, starting in pursuit, scattered and abandoned him, except for a very few around him, the so-called “table companions.” Beign with these, he saw the King and the body of troops around him. At that, he could not control himself, saying, “I see the man!” He threw a spear at him and struck him in the chest, wounding him through the breast-plate, so said Ctesias, the doctor, who also said that he himself treated the wound.

(This last paragraph is Dakyns translation.) While Cyrus was delivering his stroke, however, some one hit him a hard blow under the eye with a javelin; and then followed a struggle between the King and Cyrus and the attendants who supported each of them. The number that fell on the King’s side is stated by Ctesias, who was with him; on the other side, Cyrus himself was killed and eight of the noblest of his attendants lay dead upon him. Of Artapates, the one among Cyrus’ chamberlains who was his most faithful follower, it is told that when he saw Cyrus fallen, he leaped down from his horse and threw his arms about him. And one report is that the King ordered someone to slay him upon the body of Cyrus, while others say that he drew his dagger and slew himself with his own hand; for he had a dagger of gold, and he also wore a necklace and bracelets and all the other ornaments that the noblest Persians wear; for he had been honoured by Cyrus because of his affection and fidelity.

There are some interesting bits here. In a couple places Xenophon uses phrases like “it is said,” or “he said.” Overall, the Anabasis is based on Xenophon’s first-hand observation. But here and there he carefully notes what he heard from others. That doesn’t necessarily mean that those sections are less reliable, but it does show the beginning of writing history as a science. In earlier times, people collected and wrote myths, stories, legends, personal observations, etc., and made no real distinction. Following Herodotus and Thucydides as “real” historians, as opposed to traditional “story-tellers,” Xenophon’s care to identify those things he heard from others is noteworthy.

I had never heard the term “Enyalius” before; it refers to the god of war, “Ares” in Greek, “Mars” in Latin.

Comments

  1. Brian H wrote:

    History as “science” is maybe a label too far, but I take your point. Very interesting. Also interesting is the gradual development of the Soldier vs. the Warrior, played out many times later, notably in the “Roman legions vs. whomever” conflicts.

    Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 5:32 pm

  2. commissar wrote:

    The development is quite striking.

    Homer is mythology, perhaps with some factual basis for some parts.

    Herodotus says that he writing factually, and apparently much of it is, but he freely includes all sorts of fantastic stories in certain chapters.

    Then Thucydides who seems wholly credible, but must have been 20+ years after the fact, with lengthy reconstructed speeches (which surely were not meant to be verbatim quotes), and pulling from various unattributed sources other matters.

    Xenophon then writes a book 1) on what he himself experienced, amd 2) apparently within the recent past (1-2 years). In this context, his occasional references to “but I heard this from someone else” are quite striking.

    Of course, this was not some kind of inexorable trend. People still make stuff up (and lie)! And many of the histories of Alexander the Great seem to revert to the realm of the fabulous.

    Posted 23 Jul 2007 at 9:26 pm

  3. James Lewis, Ph.D. wrote:

    For Hellenic and Hellenistic historians, Thucydides and Polybius were considered the apex of their craft. You point to a couple of vital aspects of ancient historiography: Historians always preferred to write about contemporary or near-contemporary events. Best of all was when the historian himself could write about what he had witnessed personally (see Josephus, Jewish War). Second best was to be able to interview critically those who did participate. Thucydides was a participant in the Peloponnesian War. In fact, he was a general. There is an excellent discussion and bibliography on Hellenistic historiography in Richard Bauckham’s new book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”.

    Posted 24 Jul 2007 at 11:48 am

  4. commissar wrote:

    You’re correct about Thucydides, of course. He was a participant and surely did draw on his own knowledge.

    My comment was a little imprecise, but I meant to say that because the scope of the Peloponnesian Wars was so great, he necessarily had to draw on more sources than his own first-hand experience.

    Posted 24 Jul 2007 at 1:13 pm

« Anabasis, Book 1, Ch. 8 - Approach and Arrangements
Anabasis - On the character of Clearchus »