For those readers familiar with Plutarch you may know that in his Parallel Lives the author compared Julius Caesar with Alexander the Great, an obvious parallel comparison, but I think he might have done just as well, or better, comparing him to another Greek military commander and author. Far fewer folks are as familiar with this runner-up as with Alexander but bear me out and see what you think. The person in Ancient Greece I think whose life most parallels that of the famous Caesar, was an Athenian commander, office holder and author, whose long life spanned the end of the Peloponnesian War to the emergence of Phillip of Macedonia. Some readers will recognize his name, Xenophon of Athens, (born ca. 430 BC) and if you do, it will probably be in connection with the event known from his major literary achievement, the book known as The Anabasis ( Moving Upcountry). But to compare him to Julius Caesar, Xenophon has got to account for more than his autobiographical account of a Greek commander. More on the book will follow, below. We know a fair amount about Xenophon (pronounce the "x" like a "z"), mostly from the enormous output of his pen (or stylus) because it appears that everything that he wrote is still extant, an amazing happening for an author who wrote most of his works some 2400 years ago. Athenian playwrights of this period have seen most of their works long lost as is the same for most Ancient historians, Greek or Roman. Livy, Tacitus, Claudius (the emperor) must envy the favor of Clio who seems to have favored Xenophon with this encomium. That he wrote in Greek and that he wrote on many topics beyond his military achievements, and publicly lived a life somewhat compatible with later Christianity, may have made him more acceptable to later Byzantine copyists as a subject worthy to be preserved. The range of his interests and writings is encyclopedic. Interested in the breeding and training of horses? Well, the Ancients and even later people, have found his book to have been quite informative. Having trained as an Athenian cavalry officer probably helped there. How about the sport of hunting, especially using hunting dogs. Xenophon's book on this will tell the Nimrods of the day what breeds to use on what game and how to breed and raise those dogs. Want an alternative to Thucydides on the history of Greece? Xenophon's "Hellenica", much admired by later Byzantines, will do that and some think better. Want a incisive look into the thinking of the Ancient Philosophers? Try his Symposium, a work made possible by his having been a student of Socrates. Though Xenophon is an Ancient figure, he reminds us of later luminaries, a Renaissance man from Ancient times. His use of the Greek language is impeccable. Although he used the dialect of Attic Greek he wrote it in such a way that it was understandable by those readers who used a different dialect. Just as Caesar's Gallic Wars is used in the study of Latin as the usual first author students of Latin study for its simple and clear explanation of events, in the study of Greek, Xenophon is usually the first author students of ancient Greek are exposed to, using his Anabasis as the text. And now to the most well known of his writings, the Anabasis. Xenophon fought in the last stages of the Peloponnesian War when matters were going badly for Athens (by the way it was Xenophon who finished up Thucydides' famous account of that war). Having strong conservative views, he got mixed up in the political turmoil of a defeated Athens and chose to leave the city state while he could. At that time a friend named Proxenos contacted Xenophon about an opening in a Greek mercenary force hired by a Persian prince who aspired to greater things. After the end of the Peloponnesian war the Mediterranean was awash with unemployed soldiers looking for work. The Persian prince, Cyrus put together a force that included about ten thousand Greek soldiers, mostly hoplite heavy infantry (the Persians had plenty of archers and cavalry). The enemy of Cyrus was the then reigning king, Artaxerxes, and in the battle of Cunaxa the army of Cyrus, strongly aided by that Greek heavy infantry, won the battle, and lost the war. Cyrus was killed in his victory. Artaxerxes was not happy with the presence of 10,000 heavily armed Greeks in the middle of his empire (keep in mind Marathon, Thermopylae, Salamis and Plataea). Actually the Greek mercenary force was not happy in the middle of a hostile empire with no mission and no paymaster. They wanted out and to get back to Greek territory. Artaxerxes would not just let them leave. At first he appeared willing to negotiate their departure but in a treacherous "peace conference" the Greek generals were killed. Having decapitated the Greek mercenary force, the Persians thought they could intimidate the Greek army into surrendering. Not a chance. The Greeks elected Xenophon as their new commander and it was the best choice they could have made. I am not going to reveal what happened then but you can read about it in Xenophon's Anabasis. You will read one of the most exciting stories of an army fighting for its life to escape from hostile territory, rivaling or bettering the story of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow or the US Marines from the Chosen reservoir. I will relate one other part of the story. After months of grueling hardship, over a thousand miles of dessert and then winter mountain snows they approached the Black sea. Greeks never felt comfortable far inland and knew that if they could get to the sea they could find or build ships and get back to the Hellenic world. If they could cover that 1,000 miles from Babylon to the Euxine (Black) Sea . (Spoiler alert. They make it). In the Anabasis, Xenophon put it this way. They were ascending a ridge of hills. Xenophon was a few miles back in the column wheh he heard a few miles ahead the vanguard of the army making an awful racket, yelling, screaming and banging spears on shield. At first he thought it an attack and rushed forward with reinforcements. As he neared the top of the ridge he could just make out what the Greeks were yelling. Let me use the words of Xenophon himself. Kai tacha de akouousi Boonton ton stratioton, THALATTA, THALATTA. And quickly they heard the shouting of the soldiers, THE SEA. THE SEA So, now good readers, go and find out some more about Xenophon, the Greek Caesar whose adventurous life had just begun with the march of the ten thousand upcountry and, perhaps, even read the whole of the Anabasis for an adventure story more readable than anything in fiction. And now for my coins. I must admit that I am not as well versed in Greek coinage as Roman so I ask readers for help here. My two coins are an Athenian tetradrachma probably issued during the lifetime of Xenophon. Any experts reading this, if you can tell me more about the coin regarding its date or mint from its style please tell me. It weighs 17.05 grams. The second is a silver siglos of Persia with some great king on it, I think but maybe a satrap instead. It weighs 5.4 grams andit has a crescent shape banker's mark but I have no idea who the satrap or great king might be and therefore, its proper date. It would be nice for this post if it turned out to be Artaxerxes. The ancient Greeks believed that the greatest happiness of the dead was to hear their names mentioned among the living. Now go out and make Xenophon happy and join the ranks of the followers of Xenophon.
Great and detailed historical write-up. The famous owl of Athena is well-known. The Persian siglos is also very ancient, the reverse shows like an archer. We'll try to search about Persian kings by that time. Darius or Artaxerxes, Achaemenid etc...
Thanks and while you are at it, do you know what has been punched into that side of the coin? Is it supposed to be an image of something?
Thank you for the interesting read. Now you make me want to read the Anabasis! If I remember correctly Bertrand Russell mentions Xenophon as one of the two extant sources on Socrates in the 'History of Modern Philosopy' (the other being Plato, of course). I'm no expert on Achaemenid sigloi. Yours appears to be from group III, struck anywhere between 490 and 375 BC, so there is hope that yours is from the right period. The spear is telling for the period. Given the wear on yours and my lack of expertise I can't tell you if yours is an early ( IIIa) or late ( IIIb early and IIIb late). IIIb late would be ideal for you. Numiswiki has an interesting page on them, 'Imperial Persian Great King Sigloi'. I have one, luckily it's from the right period.
I enjoy the great write up, @kevin McGonigal ... great detail, but enough to entice my own reading. Here is a Lifetime of Xenophon Siglos Achaemenid Xerxes II to Artaxerxes II 420-375 BC AR siglos 16 mm 5.14 g Persian king running spear bow - incuse Carradice Type IIIb C pl XIV 42) Sunrise 25 And an Owl from Xenophon’s Lifetime Athens Owl AR Tet 17.3g 22.9mm x 6.8mm thick Late Classical 393-300 BC, Sear 2537, SNG Cop. 63 crud
ACHAEMENID EMPIRE AR Siglos OBVERSE: Persian king or hero in kneeling/running stance right, holding spear and bow REVERSE: Incuse punch Struck at Persia, 485-420 BC 5.5g, 16mm Carradice Type IIIb, Group A/B (pl. XII, 18)
It's nice to see a fellow Xenophon fan. I thought I would add a few remarks. I always feel that Xenophon has for too long been underappreciated by scholars (ever since the 19th century, when his reputation declined substantially from its hitherto very high place). Xenophon's history has often been considered inferior to Thucydides'. His philosophy has for long been considered less "philosophical" than Plato. (And there are reasons for both sentiments.) But he was one hell of a writer. Thucydides did not live to complete his History of the Peloponnesian War--in fact, his book ends mid-sentence. Xenophon aimed to carry on the account of this history and bring it closer to his own present-day, so he wrote his wonderful Hellenika, which picks off pretty much exactly where Thucydides left off. In so doing, he contributed to a massive historiographical project that began with Herodotus' coverage of the war of the Greeks with Persia, continued through Thucydides' account of the war between Athens and Sparta, and finished with the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea (in 362 BC), in which an alliance led by Thebes crushed the Spartan military machine in a war that exhausted the Greek cities, paving the way for their conquest and domination by Alexander the Great only thirty years later. Xenophon wrote several Socratic dialogues, including a Symposium (you can read them in the Penguin Classics book Xenophon: Conversations of Socrates). He also wrote two works that I have not yet gotten to, but which I suspect are extremely interesting: (1) a work on household management, which may be of interest to this forum's readers, in particular, and (2) the Cyropedia, which was an embellished biography (i.e. part fiction) of the Persian king Cyrus. Xenophon's portrayal of Persian government apparently had a substantial effect on the thinking of some of the US's founding fathers. I get the impression that the pendulum in terms of scholarly estimations may have started to reverse course, as there are now some scholars who have argued that the scholarly consensus, which began in the 19th century, that sought to depreciate Xenophon was overdone. -- Here are a few snippets from my long-ish journal entry on the Hellenika, which I read in the Landmark edition, as I had done with Herodotus: Now it must be said that Xenophon has nowhere near the intellectual rigour or balanced honesty of Thucydides. Where Thucydides can critically if coldly appreciate both Athenian and Spartan military doings, Xenophon writes explicitly with all the warmth of a Spartan partisan. (Background: Thucydides was an Athenian general who was exiled, and he spent considerable time in Sparta. Xenophon actually fought in Spartan armies and hobnobbed with Spartan kings.) Xenophon also falls short of the great historian’s standards when it comes to methodology. Unlike the atheistic Thucydides, the believer Xenophon often has recourse to the supposed will of the god when it comes to interpreting history. On the other hand, Xenophon is probably more entertaining than Thucydides, and I found myself engrossed in the personalities of many of his characters. Xenophon’s history really makes the ancient wars of the Greeks come alive for me. What made all those soldiers tick? Appeals to honour and glory, certainly, but appeals to money, too. (Sparta would not have defeated Athens without Persian money to pay for its ships and mercenary rowers for its fleet.) I’m grateful for the opportunity to have read Xenophon. Despite the fact that he is a “second-rate” historian compared to Thucydides, he is still very certainly worthwhile, being both entertaining, and instructive. -- I think it's appropriate to end this note with my journal entry on the Anabasis: Xenophon’s Anabasis may well be the perfect novel. A skillfully-structured narrative, gripping characters, and unusually vivid imagery combine to make the story far more of a good read than many other literary texts. Then, too, the work is much more enjoyable than Xenophon’s own Hellenika. The edition I used was the Folio Society’s one, titled “The Persian Expedition”; the book is known by other titles, too: “March of the 10,000,” “and “The March Up-Country.” While my FS volume was quite short on explanatory aids, the fact that I had already read the Hellenika in the Landmark edition was most helpful. The story, of course, is based on history, though it is clear that the book was written as an apologia by its main protagonist, the author himself. In a nutshell, a “gang of roughs” (as the FS introduction calls the 10,000), were mercenary soldiers hired out of various cities in Greece by Cyrus the Younger, who wished to seize the crown from his brother Artaxerxes II. Despite being, apparently, victorious, Cyrus was slain in battle with Artaxerxes deep in Babylonia. A short truce prevailed for negotiations to take place between the Greek generals and the Persian monarch, but this ended with the massacre of the unsuspecting Greek generals and their aids in the Persian camp. One man only escaped, running and “holding his entrails in his hands” until he gave the bad news to the Greeks. From that point on, Xenophon steadily rose to challenge after challenge until, following the departure of the more senior general weeks later, he was in command of the entire army himself. The army had to deal with logistics problems involving their baggage train, their constant need for food, their ever-present struggle against enemies from Persian cavalry forces to Kurds and other hardy folk in the mountain ranges of the north. The soldiers had to brave the winter snows in the Turkish Alps that made men so sleepy that Xenophon had to beat them to wake them up and so prevent their freezing to death. Throughout the story, the stature of Xenophon grows until the story becomes less the story of the 10,000 and more a story of one man, the writer himself: his motivations, his conduct, his principles, and his ideas. It makes for fascinating reading, not least because the narrative structures and characterization reminded me, on the one hand, of Moses and his frustrations with his people in Exodus, and on the other, of Bilbo Baggins as well as Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin’s struggles not only where you’d expect them–in enemy territory–but where you wouldn’t: upon their return home. As things turned out, Xenophon would go on to gain the friendship of one of the kings of Sparta, while most of the 10,000 who escaped Persia would be reincorporated back into the “Greek” (i.e. Spartan) army. This led to a definite lessening in Persian goodwill towards Sparta (a goodwill that had helped to defeat Athens during the Peloponnesian War), and so it helped to contribute to the downfall of Sparta from its preeminent position within Greece. The Anabasis, as Xenophon’s best work, cries out for a responsible adaptation by Hollywood. From the hero Cyrus the younger’s fatal refusal to wear a helmet as he rode into battle with his heavily-armed troops, to the famous cry of “θαλαττα, θαλαττα!” (the cry of the returning army upon catching its first sight of the sea after a march of thousands of kilometers through hostile enemy territory), to the frostbitten noses, ears, and feet that were amputated during the pass through the Kurdish mountains--the entire work reads less like what one expects from a book, and more like what one would expect from a Hollywood blockbuster. That would be an exciting movie, and one that could be made, with little effort, into something much better and more thought-provoking than your typical action flick.
Thanks, Nathan B. I appreciate those additional pieces of information. I realized that I already written too much on a man who requires much more that I could write. Interesting footnote about my own study of the Anabasis. In my posting I wrote about students studying ancient Attic Greek being exposed to Xenophon as their first serious reading text. That was my case at the University where I originally majored in the Classics. Our final exam, the only grade for this course, was that we would be given a passage from a famous author to translate. The few days before the exam I decide to do some practice translation and since I loved studying history more than plays or philosophy I decided to read some Xenophon and chose the portion that dealt with the Greeks catching sight of the sea, Thalatta! Thalatta!. Then gods were with me. The professor chose this same reading as our exam. Thanks, Clio.
Thank you, Kevin! I wish very much that I had majored in Classics. Over the years, I've done a very large amount of reading of Greek literature of various genres--but all of it in translation. That said, back in my religious days a long time ago, I managed to get a background in ancient Near Eastern history and languages (now mostly forgotten), and I did manage to squeeze in two years of New Testament Greek--so that does help a bit. On another note, I remember C.S. Lewis writing somewhere that he found the New Testament almost as easy as Xenophon, which was how he had been introduced to ancient Greek, too. I think Xenophon has been the standard for student readings for a very long time because of how straightforward his writing was. I think we are very fortunate to have so many of his texts with us!
Oh, yes. At school we were given a New testament with one side of the text the Latin Vulgate, the other in Koine Greek. I still have it. Reading the Vulgate was considered backsliding, if not cheating. I never became proficient in either Attic or Koine Greek. When visiting Greece I tried some of my ancient Greek and the results were probably comical to the natives. I would say, though, that modern demotic Greek is closer to ancient Greek than Italian to Latin but with my ancient pronunciation I probably sounded like Chaucer does to modern speakers of English. The Greek people, however, were enormously patient with me though it didn't take too long for most of them to ask to switch to something else.
I see the similarity concerning the way Xenophon and Caesar both promoted themselves in deed and word, so to speak. But what do you think they would have made of each other? Looking at the sort of political philosophy suggested in Xenophon's Hiero, and his Economist - I suspect they would have hated each other. Rob T
There used to be a TV program called, "The Meeting of the Minds" where actors from various periods would come together as the reincarnations of famous people who would then discuss various issues and how they would address them. I am pretty sure Xenophon never showed up and I can't recall Caesar being there but such a confrontation would have been most interesting. I also wonder if Caesar actually had read of Xenophon in his lifetime. Considering that Caesar was well educated he may indeed have read some of Xenophon's writings and if he did, the Anabasis, might have been among Xenophon's works that he read. Xenophon wrote the Anabasis under a pseudonym so Caesar may not have known it was a work BY Xenophon that he was reading. Would they have agreed on much. Xenophon did not hold democracy much in esteem and preferred strongly conservative government and Caesar might have preferred that aspect of Xenophon to other author's views, and vice versa. I think both had pretty strong feelings about "barbarians" and neither would have lost much sleep wondering about their welfare. Both men possessed outsized egos so I suspect that sooner or later there would have been disagreement between the two. What I find most intriguing is what would have happened had they met on the battlefield.
At least as far as domestic policy goes I would make Caesar more Whiggish than Xenophon. Do you disagree? For instance Caesar seems to be boosting the money supply by coining reserves, and by prohibitions on hoarding, while Xenophon, (like Plato and the Spartans), did not seem to like cash and markets at all. I suspect Xenophon would see Caesar as something of a tyrant/demagogue. To be honest I find Xenophon kind of simplistic in a rather unpleasant sort of way. His answer to Athenian political problems seem to be just 'get more slaves'. Around 9 AD Wang Mang in China had made the sale of slaves illegal in China - so in objective terms neither X nor C come out smelling of roses - but I find Xenophon harder to like Rob T
You are reminding me that there is a lot about Xenophon that I do not know. I am not certain though, that Xenophon would have seen a tyrant, in the Greek meaning of the term, as unfavorably as a Roman, at least the Optimates, would have seen a dictator for life. The topic of slavery, except perhaps as an economic matter, would have been seen by just about any Greek or Roman as having no importance or worth at all. Both do share something that is a redeeming value. Although both would kill those who got in their way, neither seemed sadistic about it and did not kill gratuitously. Also both share the ability to read a battlefield accurately and quickly adjust to changing circumstances which is not a common quality in military commanders.
Thanks Kevin – two huge topics – I will try sketch roughly how I differ As I understand it “tyrant” was not a pejorative term in early Greek times – with folk like Peisistratos - (like Solon) - standing up for ordinary folk against hereditary oligarchy. I think this gets especially interesting for coin people if we look at the structure of Heroditus’ “Histories”. If he was really giving us a history of the Greeks – why did he start with the rise to power of a non-Greek Lydian tyrant Gyges? Against that backdrop – if - as Herodotus suggested – Gyges & co also created coinage and retailing - it gets even stranger. Coinage spread like wildfire for about 150 years before anyone mentioned in text that coins even existed – really - till Herodotus himself! Why the silence about coins??? In short then - I think surviving texts give a a biased version of events. Some Greeks loved tyrants and some hated them, but the (silent) spread of coin use itself was tied up with popularly driven spread of tyranny. My impression is that the modern pejorative use of the word "tyrant" specifically goes back to Xenophon (especially in his psychologically unconvincing picture of Hiero) and Plato. They both seem to me propagandists in favour of hereditary oligarchy and against coin use. I suspect there is another side to the debate that did not get much preserved. Why the silence about coin use? Popper disagreed and argued that the arguments in favour of slavery by both Plato and Aristotle have to be read as being in opposition to an anti-slavery movement thriving at the time - which was subsequently written out of history. I am not taking sides on that, just mentioning it. If we move forward to Tiberius Gracchus – he definitely was against the systematic mass use of slave labour by the rich (which sounds quite a lot like what Xenophon promoted). It seems pretty clear too that his best friend Blossius escaped the slaughter and fled to the “city of freed slaves” in Turkey (alongside Eumenes III). The kicker is we know Blossius wrote books - and - we know nothing of their contents survived. Kind of interesting to wonder about what was in them…….. Seems to me whether we call then "tyrants" or not - Solon, Peisistratos, Pericles, Caesar and Octavian were all operating in roughly the same ball park (or at least - claimed to do so). Xenophon and Plato were at the top of the list taking an opposite view. Rob T
This is the kind of thread that makes this forum a delight. I knew about the phrase 'Thallata, thallata' but I had completely forgoten about its origins. The adventure of the 10,000 is another example of very interesting and fascinating historical events that do not get mentioned in school history lessons. Naturally, I bought Anabasis and I am really looking forward to reading it
