Chariots as equid battering rams

[Erpingham]

s Thymbra Fictional?
Academic consensus considers it so.  This unfortunately is not a reliable guide (if academic consensus were a reliable guide, who would need sources?), especially given Xenophon's opportunities for exposure to Persian historical tradition.

Firstly, the issue is really whether Cyropaedia is a detailed and accurate portrayal of history or an instructive fiction?  The battle of Thymbra could have taken place without it having any effect on the question, in the same way as King Arthur could have existed without that making Morte d'Arthur a true history.

Did Xenophon have access to persian stories about Cyrus?  Possibly, though of course we don't know what or how reliable.  Ditto, written history.  It's not impossible.  Does this mean he set out to write a detailed accurate history? No.  The longstanding consensus is was writing a reflection on leadership, or benevolent kingship, destined for a Greek audience but placed outside Greek literary tradition.  It could be wrong but an critical, evidence-based rejection is needed to overturn it, not just a statement that "academics are unreliable".

[Erpingham]

s Thymbra Fictional?
Academic consensus considers it so.  This unfortunately is not a reliable guide (if academic consensus were a reliable guide, who would need sources?), especially given Xenophon's opportunities for exposure to Persian historical tradition.

Firstly, the issue is really whether Cyropaedia is a detailed and accurate portrayal of history or an instructive fiction?  The battle of Thymbra could have taken place without it having any effect on the question, in the same way as King Arthur could have existed without that making Morte d'Arthur a true history.

Did Xenophon have access to persian stories about Cyrus?  Possibly, though of course we don't know what or how reliable.  Ditto, written history.  It's not impossible.  Does this mean he set out to write a detailed accurate history? No.  The longstanding consensus is was writing a reflection on leadership, or benevolent kingship, destined for a Greek audience but placed outside Greek literary tradition.  It could be wrong but an critical, evidence-based rejection is needed to overturn it, not just a statement that "academics are unreliable".

P.S. I don't think this thread would be the place - it is on a different topic and is winding up.

[Duncan Head]

Is Thymbra Fictional?
Academic consensus considers it so.  This unfortunately is not a reliable guide (if academic consensus were a reliable guide, who would need sources?), especially given Xenophon's opportunities for exposure to Persian historical tradition.

Firstly, the issue is really whether Cyropaedia is a detailed and accurate portrayal of history or an instructive fiction?  The battle of Thymbra could have taken place without it having any effect on the question, in the same way as King Arthur could have existed without that making Morte d'Arthur a true history.

Surely that's not "the issue", but a side-issue; the subject of this thread is chariots, and the general nature of the Cyropaedia is relevant only in so far as it bears on the accuracy of the battle account.

Thymbra is almost certainly a battle that did take place: Herodotos described two battles between Cyrus and Croesus, and the second one, which Herodotos does not name but which took place not far from Sardis, involved Persian camels scaring the Lydian cavalry horses. Thymbra must be a version of this historical battle - the question is, how accurate a version is it? Can we trust its account of chariots (and towers, and Egyptians), which Herodotos' earlier version does not mention, and for which there seem to be no other surviving sources? Or did Xenophon just lift the camels from Herodotos and weave them into an instructive fiction?

[RichT]

So much for winding up - this is another zombie thread.

More alarming though:

FYI, in the coming months you will see me pointing out serious flaws in one of our key historical sources - Manetho

Does this mean that we can look forward to a Slingshot article from Patrick on Egyptian chronology? There was always a danger of things turning in this direction - I suspect this Society is heading toward a crisis. I hope someone is aware of this and working to avert it.

[Andreas Johansson]

Egyptian chronology is somewhat peripheral to the subject matter of Slingshot, isn't it? I mean, you could argue that Ramessides and Achaemenids should be listed as historical enemies, or whatever, but it's not really military history.

[Erpingham]

Egyptian chronology is somewhat peripheral to the subject matter of Slingshot, isn't it? I mean, you could argue that Ramessides and Achaemenids should be listed as historical enemies, or whatever, but it's not really military history.

In fairness to Patrick, I'm sure he will focus on the military dimension.  I'm also sure if Justin thinks there is a problem relevance-wise, he will ask for changes when he receives the article.

[Andreas Johansson]

Egyptian chronology is somewhat peripheral to the subject matter of Slingshot, isn't it? I mean, you could argue that Ramessides and Achaemenids should be listed as historical enemies, or whatever, but it's not really military history.

In fairness to Patrick, I'm sure he will focus on the military dimension.  I'm also sure if Justin thinks there is a problem relevance-wise, he will ask for changes when he receives the article.

I don't think Patrick has yet even said whether he intends to write a Slingshot article, so my post was meant less as a criticism than a philosophical musing.

Actually, if he's confident in his ideas, I think he should at least try submitting them to an actual egyptological venue.

[RichT]

The Slingshot article notion was my inference, and I may be totally wrong. If so, I'm glad. Maybe he meant he would be able to point us to an article in an actual Egyptological venue (peer reviewed perchance?) in which case, that would be great.

[Erpingham]

Actually, if he's confident in his ideas, I think he should at least try submitting them to an actual egyptological venue.

Academia.edu would be another option.  I know Steven James, another radical thinker on ancient military history, publishes stuff there.

[Flaminpig0]

Actually, if he's confident in his ideas, I think he should at least try submitting them to an actual egyptological venue.

Academia.edu would be another option.  I know Steven James, another radical thinker on ancient military history, publishes stuff there.

There is also the Fortean Times an article in that would give publicity to the  society and perhaps  encourage a new group of members.

[Patrick Waterson]

Firstly, the issue is really whether Cyropaedia is a detailed and accurate portrayal of history or an instructive fiction?  The battle of Thymbra could have taken place without it having any effect on the question, in the same way as King Arthur could have existed without that making Morte d'Arthur a true history.

Surely that's not "the issue", but a side-issue; the subject of this thread is chariots, and the general nature of the Cyropaedia is relevant only in so far as it bears on the accuracy of the battle account.

My thinking also.

Thymbra is almost certainly a battle that did take place: Herodotos described two battles between Cyrus and Croesus, and the second one, which Herodotos does not name but which took place not far from Sardis, involved Persian camels scaring the Lydian cavalry horses. Thymbra must be a version of this historical battle - the question is, how accurate a version is it? Can we trust its account of chariots (and towers, and Egyptians), which Herodotos' earlier version does not mention, and for which there seem to be no other surviving sources? Or did Xenophon just lift the camels from Herodotos and weave them into an instructive fiction?

Herodotus actually has two battles: one in I.77, which he does not detail except to say that neither side wins, but after which the Lydians retreat and dismiss their allies, and another in I.79-80 in which the Lydians fight alone and Cyrus uses his camels against them.  Given the presence of Lydia's allies in Xenophon's account of Thymbra, this would make Thymbra the first of the two battles described by Herodotus and hence there is no discrepancy between them (apart from the acute brevity of Herodotus' account).

[Patrick Waterson]

I don't think Patrick has yet even said whether he intends to write a Slingshot article, so my post was meant less as a criticism than a philosophical musing.

Actually, if he's confident in his ideas, I think he should at least try submitting them to an actual egyptological venue.

Any suggestions?

[Dangun]

Thymbra is almost certainly a battle that did take place: Herodotos described two battles between Cyrus and Croesus, and the second one, which Herodotos does not name but which took place not far from Sardis, involved Persian camels scaring the Lydian cavalry horses. Thymbra must be a version of this historical battle - the question is, how accurate a version is it? Can we trust its account of chariots (and towers, and Egyptians), which Herodotos' earlier version does not mention, and for which there seem to be no other surviving sources?

Does Xénophon's description of the second battle line up with Herodotus?

We should be deeply suspicious of later sources with greater detail than earlier sources.
A trivial example, but all the pre-battle conversation is surely Xénophon fiction.

[Patrick Waterson]

Does Xénophon's description of the second battle line up with Herodotus?

An intelligent question: intriguingly, Xenophon does not seem to realise there was a second battle.  While Herodotus has the Lydians dismiss their (remaining) allies between the two battles, Xenophon appears to conflate the two, in that after his battle,

"When Cyrus and his men had finished dinner and stationed guards, as was necessary, they went to rest. As for Croesus and his army, they fled straight towards Sardis, while the other contingents got away, each man as far as he could under cover of the night on his way toward home.

When daylight came, Cyrus led his army straight on against Sardis."

Xenophon thus gives the impression that the battle was fought almost within sight if Sardis instead of near the border.  This would seem to confirm that Herodotus is not part of his source material.  It also makes one wonder about Persian tradition, whether two battles (one 'winning draw' and one outright success) were conflated into a single, successful battle.  The evident lack of pursuit by Cyrus' forces would seem more in keeping with the aftermath of a drawn battle than a successful one.  We can conjecture that Croesus was defeated in the first battle and perhaps his Egyptian contingent lost, but in Herodotus the degree of  Median success was not such as to make him think the campaign would continue.  Hence Xenophon's source appears to have merged the two battles, unthinkable for someone using Herodotus as his source, but not inconceivable from someone who took his material directly from Persians.

We should be deeply suspicious of later sources with greater detail than earlier sources.

This is an apparently worthy principle, but it can be misleading.  The later source may have tapped a new vein of information not available to the earlier source, and/or the earlier source may have had contemporary motivation to misrepresent matters (see Polybius on Timaeus and Fabius Pictor, for example, and compare Velleius Paterculus with Tacitus).  I would prefer to look at the source in terms of what sort of pattern does this give us, and what else does it imply?  This allows us to tie it in with other knowledge we may possess, while leaving us free to check for internal inconsistencies and for implications which do not fit our other information.

It is a bit like putting together an intelligence picture.

A trivial example, but all the pre-battle conversation is surely Xénophon fiction.

One must ask why: in antiquity, a bon mot by a highly-placed individual rapidly gained wide currency, and there is no reason why memorable elements of a pre-battle discussion should not to the same.  One can see a 'Socratic' element in the dialogue, but one should consider how a bright young Medo-Persian would have explained ideas for new practices to tradition-reared contemporaries.  The essential points Xenophon has Cyrus make would have to have been made; whether they were made differently is a question we are unlikely to be able to answer at this remove in time and culture.

[Andreas Johansson]

Any suggestions?

Not really, tho WP's Category:Egyptology journals might be a starting point. Note that the German-language ones seem to accept English-language submissions.