Comments on: Anabasis, Book 1, Ch. 9 - Hunting and Loyalty

By: TimK

TimK — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:25:39 +0000

Thank you for going to all the effort to translate this very exciting book and then adding your insights into word usage and the times.
My degree was in History, but my thought is that until one can actually read the language of the day, you really don’t fully understand what is happening.
Have a great day.

By: canuckistani

canuckistani — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:51:33 +0000

I was always under the impression, and I certainly hope to be corrected if I’m wrong, that the ancient Greeks didn’t go for the whole equestrian=noble thing, and in fact had a remarkably egalitarian society (all the usual women/slaves/barbarians disclaimers apply). It was, I was told, because the phalanx and trireme were so effective and entirely antithical to the old Homeric business of valiant leaders fighting out front for all to see.

btw Commissar, I’m sure all the other Balloon Juice readers are eagerly awaiting your report on what you did on your summer holidays

By: commissar

commissar — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:40:22 +0000

Canuck,

As you point out, the Greeks, especially the Athenians, did have a “modified, limited” egalitarian society.

Pending further study, I guess that the Greeks, even the Athenians of Xenophon’s time, still bought into the “equestrian = noble” thing, but the whole issue probably wasn’t black&white. That is, Athens was a democracy, but perhaps they were comfortable with the notion that “some are more equal than others.”

By: Grim

Grim — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:04:19 +0000

Something occurs to me that I should mention, speaking as someone who has assisted in training a few green horses.

The thinking you’re bringing to this is influenced by things the Greeks didn’t know about — the later institutions of knighthood, etc., and the military superiority of cavalry brought about by the stirrup (which they did not have). That is what created a “noble” class, a class with special military skills and powers.

What the Greeks thought about horses was what anyone who has encountered them thinks — that they are huge, dangerous, powerful animals that are terrified by anything; and that working with and training them is a good way to get your neck or your back broken. (BloodSpite will back me up here.)

This is why, in the Iliad, several of the mighty heroes are described by the legend: “Breaker of Horses.” It’s more primal than the idea of an ‘equestrian nobility.’ It’s about encountering a huge and terrifying animal, and mastering it.

By: commissar

commissar — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:25:47 +0000

Great insight, Grim!

Thanks.

By: canuckistani

canuckistani — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 14:00:33 +0000

For Greeks in the Homeric era, horses were primarily used for pulling chariots, so the added expense, infrastructure and staffing requirements would make horses even more of an aristocratic luxury. So I think the Greeks did have an equestrian noble tradition in their history, and may even have been nostalgic for it like we are towards medieval knights.

By: Grim

Grim — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:22:20 +0000

I’m not sure that’s right. Chariots were important in ancient Greek warfare of the Iliadic period (though, by the Classical period, infantry warfare had long been more important). Even in the Iliad, as J. K. Anderson admitted against his interest in Greek Chariot-Borne and Mounted Infantry, the chariots are ‘in the way’ of the infantry rather than an important part of the battle.

For the Classical Greek of Xenophon’s day, whose imagination was located in the Iliad in the same way that the 1950s American’s imagination was located in the Western, the horse and chariot were not terribly important to warfare. Just as the rifle received less play in the Western (relative to the revolver) than it deserved historically, chariots received far less play in the legends than they probably deserved; and by the Classical period, that would have seemed natural, as the infantry had been predominant for a while.

The experience of breaking or taming horses, however, doesn’t change from generation to generation. Any society that needs them for transportation will have legends around those who do that work.

By: canuckistani

canuckistani — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:55:05 +0000

It’s been a while since I’ve read the Illiad, so I couldn’t tell you how much of the fighting was done from chariot back, and how much the chariots were used as personnel carriers to get to the battlefield. Either way, I wouldn’t blink an eye if I heard that everything Homer wrote was a full blown lie. It would have been, though a romantic image the classical Greeks were familiar with.
I don’t actually know how much the Classical Greeks relied on horses for any purposes, but I’m going to guess that it was very little, given how little emphasis was put on the equestrian skills of Greek classical leaders/heroes. I’ve never seen an image of Pericles on a horse. Greece was a technologically advanced sea/infantry power, and I fear that by the classical era, horse breaking may have been a quiant anachronism among the elite of society. Much like we may be impressed by someone’s horse riding skills, but it’s behaviour one would find faintly embarassing in a Senator.

By: Grim

Grim — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:21:01 +0000

I’d suggest that horsemanship is something you’d only find embarrassing in a Senator if you hadn’t tried it yourself. Horsemanship is hard, and even trail-riding on a well-mannered animal requires a certain level of personal bravery, kindness, and self-control.

(Alternatively, you need perfect ignorance, so that you don’t realize how dangerous what you’re doing actually is. Some people can seem like very good riders until the first time they get thrown hard, after which their new awareness makes it hard for them to even get on a horse.)

I’d rather have a Senator who was good with horses than one who was good at any other sport I can think of. Not that sports weigh heavily on my mind when voting. I’d rather have a Senator with the right political understandings than one who was a good horseman. Still, it certainly wouldn’t lessen my opinion of the man (or lady — many of the best horse riders are women these days, and maybe even most of the best).

Classical Athens was a technologically advanced sea power, but it’s easy to make too much of that. The thing to remember is that the reason they didn’t have knights was that they hadn’t developed the stirrup. It wasn’t that they didn’t need heavy cavalry and had therefore set it aside, but rather that they hadn’t developed a capacity for it. It’s certainly the case that the war between Athens and Sparta, which Athens lost, was lost for want of greater land power — which can come in the form of improved mobility and communications provided by horses, as well as the shock of cavalry forces.

Plutarch records a complaint (if memory serves) from Pericles that Athens’ tributary states had provided only money, and not ships or horses or fighting men. I’m pretty sure that “horses” were run in with the other two, which suggests they remained important.

By: Grim

Grim — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:25:32 +0000

Yeah, here it is. Search on “horse” — it’s the second mention.

“Pericles, on the other hand, informed the people, that they were in no way obliged to give any account of those moneys to their allies, so long as they maintained their defence, and kept off the barbarians from attacking them; while in the meantime they did not so much as supply one horse or man or ship, but only found money for the service[.]”