Hellenika: Griechisch - Deutsch (Sammlung Tusculum)

by Xenophon, Gisela Strassburger (Editor)

Das grosse Geschichtswerk des Thukydides bricht ab um das Jahr 411. Hier setzt Xenophon, ein Schuler des Sokrates, ein. Seine "Hellenika" in sieben Buchern, die einzige vollstandig erhaltene Fortsetzung des Thukydides, ist die Darstellung der griechischen Geschichte vom letzten Teil des Peleponnesischen Krieges bis zur Schlacht von Mantinea im Jahre 362. Leitgedanke des Werkes ist der Aufstieg Spartas zur Hegemonialmacht und sein Niedergang. Die objektive Form des Berichterstattung des Thukydides wird zwar beibehalten, jedoch ohne strenge Chronologie und mit einer gewissen Willkur der Stoffverteilung. Die sachkundige Beschreibung der Strategie und Kriegstechnik wird belebt durch zahlreiche eingelegte Reden und dramatisch gestaltete Einzelszenen

Genres: History, Classics, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Ancient, Greece, Philosophy

832 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 363

About the author

Xenophon (Ancient Greek Ξενοφῶν, Modern Greek Ξενοφώντας; ca. 431 – 355 BC), son of Gryllus, of the deme Erchia of Athens, was a soldier, mercenary and a contemporary and admirer of Socrates. He is known for his writings on the history of his own times, preserving the sayings of Socrates, and the life of ancient Greece.

Historical and biographical works:
Anabasis (or The Persian Expedition)
Cyropaedia
Hellenica
Agesilaus

Socratic works and dialogues:
Memorabilia
Oeconomicus
Symposium
Apology
Hiero

Short treatises:
On Horsemanship
The Cavalry General
Hunting with Dogs
Ways and Means
Constitution of Sparta

Reviews

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

After the Peloponesian War
16 February 2013

After reading Herodotus, Thucydides, and the Anabasis, I must agree with a number of people that Xenophon's account of the period of Hellenic history from the closing stages of the Peloponesian War to, well, some point in time in which he stopped writing, was rather disappointing and without any point whatsoever. The Anabasis is a gripping story of how a group of Greek soldiers get trapped thousands of miles behind enemy lines and have to make a long march back home. Herodotus is a work of a grand scale where we travel the eastern Mediterranean meeting the peoples of the region and learning their culture, culminating in the Persian Wars where the small collection of city states that was Greece pretty much kicked Persian butt.

As for this book, well, with the exception of the Anabasis, it is what can be expected of Xenophon, and that is a pretty scrappy piece of work with no real research and biased towards one particular city state: Sparta. For a while it was considered to be the quintessential account of the period from about 410 BC to around 370 BC, that is until we discovered a bunch of ancient documents in a garbage dump in the Egyptian village of Oxyrhincus.

Until that discovery, there were only two sources about this period: Xenophon, and Diodorus, and since Diodorus had written much later, Xenophon was the preferred text. However, amongst the many fragments unearthed at Oxyrhincus (which included a medical report that was used in a civil action to prove that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the house falling down on him) was a history of this (which has been referred to as the Hellenica Oxyrhincus) which ended up supporting Diodorus' version (and I hope I have the name right because if I don't, I'll look like one first class idiot who claims to be an Ancient Greek historian, but then again I have already done that in Rome when I was standing before Trajan's Column proclaiming that it was built as a memorial to Trajan's conquest of Parthia, at which point a Romanian woman appeared beside me and began to argue with me about how it was to commemorate his invasion of Dachia – she turned out to be right – thanks Wikipedia). As for the Hellenica Oxyrhincus, I suspect that the language of the document put it back to around the time that Xenophon was writing, which is why it (and Diodorus) have become the preferred sources.

However, a couple of things I noted and that was that every time somebody won a victory, they would put up a trophy of their victory, but then that is not surprising because if you go to Rome you will see remnants of these trophies everywhere (such as the Arch of Constantine commemorating him becoming the sole emperor of Rome), the Arch of Titus (commemorating his victory over the Jews), the Arch of Septimus Servus (commemorating something, most likely how much of an awesome dude his was), and of course, Trajan's Column (yes, commemorating his victory in Dachia – grumble, grumble).

Another thing I picked up was that even if you win some big war it does not mean that you enter into a period of endless peace. Here we have the Spartan Admiral Lysander defeating the Athenians and bringing the Peloponesian War to an end, and pretty much creating Spartan hegemony throughout the region. However, we then discover that despite this victory, there are more battles being fought around the fringes of Greece. A couple of times some generals attempted to march on the Persian King (one of them being the subject of the Anabasis) but it was not until Alexander popped up that anybody managed to succeed. Also, despite Sparta holding power over the Grecian world, it did not mean that nobody else was going to attempt to take a shot at the title, and in this particular instance it was Thebes. Here we hear, sort of (Xenophon doesn't say anything about it), about the sacred legion. This legion was a legion of made up entirely of homosexual lovers (women didn't fight in wars in those days). The idea was that if you make up a band of soldiers who were connected in this way then they would fight much better and be much more devastating on the battle field. In the end it didn't work (they were beaten at Corinth).

One final thing (even though I could relate the idea above to Britain's experience after the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of Germany, as well as the United State's experience after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of China, I won't) is that I have noted that there is reference to Dionysius of Syracuse in this book. The reason I mention that is because I have heard of him, and even read a book about him called Tyrant (it was one of those historical fictions that I generally do not like). The thing was that I did not actually know where this particular writer (who happens to be some professor of Ancient History) got his sources, and I suspect one of them was this book. However, the only connection between that book and this is that Xenophon mentions an invasion of Sicily by the Carthaginians and that Dionysius happened to be a tyrant in Syracuse.

[Todd N · Rating 5 out of 5]

Xmas 2009 gift. This is the third deluxe Greek history produced by retired-oil-businessman-turned-classicist Robert Strassler. I greatly enjoyed and recommend all three of them.

Xenophon's Hellenika picks up a few months after Thucydides, with a few years left in the Pelonnesian War.

Xenophon is not as good a historian as either Herotodus or Thucydides in my thoroughly uninformed opinion. He's not as earthy or digressive (or as gullible) as old Herotodus and not as impartial and logical as Thucydides. Xenophon's obvious pro-Spartan, anti-Thebean bias is a major flaw of this history. He leaves out entire battles and grudgingly mentions generals who were successful against Sparta. Imagine if Glen Beck's books were the only surviving chronicle of the early 21st century.

Another thing that makes this history difficult is that Xenophon is writing this for an audience that was intimately familiar with the events being written about. Fortunately, this edition has the usual Landmark maps, footnotes, explanatory appendices, etc, so it's possible to follow along even if you don't know your Sardis from your Syracuse. There is no way I could have gotten through this history in a typical paperback translation.

The history itself is only 316 pages out of the 660 or so pages of the book. There are LXVI very useful pages of introduction that put what you are about to read in context. And after the history are sixteen appendices that provide plenty of background on topics like Sparta's government, land warfare, brief biographies of the important figures, etc. I found them useful to read when I felt like I needed to take a break from the text.

I like to read histories like these for the fascinating stories, and Xenophon delivers the goods here: Athens executes six of their own generals for not retrieving shipwrecked sailors after a battle because of a storm. After Athens loses the war (maybe those generals would have come in handy), Sparta abolishes their democracy and installs The Thirty to rule over them. The Thirty promptly starts executing the upper class and confiscating their property. And that's just the first part.

The Persian Empire plays a significant role in the Hellenika. They want the Greek cities in Asia Minor of course, but more importantly they want to ensure that no one Greek city becomes too powerful. Persia keeps the region unstable throughout most of the book by making treaties with or giving loads of money to whichever city can stir up the most trouble. Fortunately the days of large empires keeping entire regions destabilized are long gone.

I also read these histories for the just plain weirdness, and there is plenty of that. The Greeks have some fun with the Persians when they strip the captured soldiers before selling them so that everyone will see their un-tanned, flabby bodies and not be afraid of them. We learn that the most feared Theban fighting force is made of 150 homosexual couples, which if you think about it makes more sense than don't ask/don't tell. Later, the Olympics are interrupted by a raging battle.

After a while the history feels like an extended Spy vs. Spy cartoon from Mad Magazine. Around Book 6 it started reading like this: "Sparta...blah blah blah...Thebes...blah blah blah...treaty...blah blah blah...ambush...Argos...blah blah blah."

I think even Xenophon gets a little tired of it because he ends the whole thing describing a wonderfully pointless battle at Mantineia with this amazing passage:

When the battle was over, the result was the opposite of what everyone had expected. Given that nearly all of Greece was gathered there and had stood with one side or the other, everyone thought that if a battle occurred, the victor would rule over the defeated and the defeated would be subject to the victor. But the god so arranged it that each side set up a trophy as if victorious, and each was not prevented by the enemy; each gave back the dead under truce as if victorious, and both received back their dead under truce as if defeated. And although each side claimed the victory, neither side was seen to have gained anything -- no city, territory or increased rule -- that they did not have prior to the battle. In Greece as a whole there was more uncertainty and disturbance after the battle than there had been before.

So it ends the same as that old hippie song "One Tin Soldier."

Highly recommended, even though it's a little frightening to learn that these knuckleheads are a cornerstone of our civilization.

[Phoenix2 · Rating 3 out of 5]

I always liked the Peloponisian wars (hostoricaly speaking) as I've always found them interesting. This version gives an in depth discription of the events, the reasons that trigered the whole affair and the events on the perspactive of those who lived them. All in all, I liked that it was straightforward, easy to read and very textbook like.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Given that it is our only contemporary account for a sixty year period of classical history, the "Hellenica" in principle would rate five stars. However, as the translator notes, the "Hellenica" is simply a chronicle of events with neither a"general idea" nor "unity".

The "Hellenica" begins where Thucydides' "Peloponnesian War" ends. Reading it then does provide comfort to those wanting to know what happened after Thucydides' narrative ends. Read as a continuation of Thucydides' "History of the Peloponnesian War", the "Hellenica" does acquire unity and a general thesis of sorts. Like Thucydides Xenophone feels that the Athenians bear the principal blame for starting and then persisting in the Peloponnesian War. Both Thucydides and Xenophon viewed the Athenian democracy as being demagogic. Thucydides tried to show that democracies were unable to end pointless wars because their demagogic leaders were reluctant to advocate compromise and concession. Xenophon's chief complaint with the Athenian democracy of its time was that it continually created and executed scapegoats.

Read on the heels of the "Peloponnesian War", the "Hellenica" has value. Read on its own it is a mind-numbing chronicle of a conflict that no one either can or wishes to end.

[Xander · Rating 3 out of 5]

A History of My Times (or, Hellenica) by Xenophon is a slightly disappointing read. The book starts off promising, with picking the story of the 4th century B.C. Greek wars up where Thucydides left it. But pretty soon Xenophon starts to differ in his approach and picks an entirely different approach: more of a personal memoir, heavily coloured by his pro-Spartan, anti-Athenian and anti-Theban outlook than Thucydides' accurate and neutral military historical approach.

The moralizing aspects of A History of My Times become both pretty obvious and pretty boring very soon. This makes reading further a slog. Nevertheless, the book has its brilliant moments and entertaining stories, although one wonders how accurate all these tales are, considering Xenophon's selective and biased approach.

In all, the book offers some gems but unfortunately they are too sparse and too hidden in the more boring stuff. In no way is Xenophon's work on the same level with Thucydides' History. Read the latter.

[James Murphy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think this an exceptional reading experience and an exceptional experience in history. This history in the Landmark series edited by Robert Strassler follows the editions of The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides and The Histories by Herodotus. We record and read history all the time. Xenophon's writings demonstrate, as those of Thucydides and Herodotus, that even 2400 years ago history was being recorded in accounts so gripping that readers today can't put them down. These Landmark Greek histories in all their encyclopedic scholarship and researched presentation give us a picture of that distant past almost as clear as a photograph. Supporting Xenophon's text are detailed maps, footnotes, and appendices which explain every imaginable facet of political, military, religious, and social life in those times. Specifically, it continues the political and military history of the Peloponnesian War from the point in 411BC when Thucydides left off and covers the subsequent Aegean wars to 362BC. Homer is Homer and Virgil is Virgil--they have their strengths and wonders. Xenophon's strengths and wonders, however, are real, and when he writes of desperate engagements of hoplites stabbing and slashing at each other, of triremes flashing at speed in oar-churned waters, of voices raised in threat or in political rhetoric or to invoke some deity, it actually happened as dramatically as he describes. Such epic history has all the spectacle and human nature of the epic poetry. It's truly a satisfying involvement in history to read it laid out so completely it provides an all-encompassing understanding of the who and what and why of classical Greece.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War ends suddenly with seven more years to go, one man decided to pick up the history and its aftermath which for centuries many readers were grateful for. A History of My Times by Xenophon sees the end of the Second Peloponnesian War and follows the aftermath of that devastating war which saw hegemony move from Sparta to Thebes.

Xenophon begins his history right where Thucydides’ left off and the first two books of the work cover the last seven years of the Peloponnesian War, which saw the return of Alcibiades to the Athenian military and the resultant Athenian naval victories before his second exile and the rise of the Spartan navy that led to the fall of Athens and the establishment of the 30 tyrants allied to Spartan hegemony. The internal politics of Athens took centerstage as the reign of the tyrants resulted in a civil war that saw the restitution of Athenian democracy. Book 3 looks at Spartan politics and the campaign of King Agesilaus to Asia Minor to fight the Persians. Book 4 sees the Persians bribe Sparta’s traditional allies and enemies to unite to attack Spartan hegemony as well as end Agesilaus’ campaign. The resulting Corinthian War continues through Book 5 when both sides accept terms by the Persian King in the so-called “King’s Peace”, however five years later a Spartan general captured the Theban acropolis resulting in Sparta controlling the politics of the city until a band of exiles retakes the city and begins reestablishing the Boeotian League with the resulting Boeotian War. Book 6 sees the end of the Boeotian War and Spartan hegemony with the Battle of Leuctra, which inaugurates the short-lived Theban hegemony. Book 7 sees Sparta and Athens ally to battle Theban hegemony even as the former is convulsed with internal rebellion and outside Peloponnesian resistance allowing Thebes to invade the Spartan homeland. The work ends with the second Battle of Mantinea which was a tactical Theban victory but strategic defeat that saw the end of Theban hegemony with all the major powers of Greece weakened from decades of fighting.

In his introduction of the book, George Cawkwell essentially said this history of Greece by Xenophon was a memoir that was circulated amongst his friends who knew all the details of the events Xenophon was writing about. Meaning that modern-day readers like myself are totally in the dark and basically Cawkwell would have to fill us in with his footnotes thanks to other sources from the era that essentially showed that Xenophon was an Athenian-born Spartan partisan and Agesilaus’ fanboy. Though Xenophon mentioned his adventure with the Ten-Thousand expedition against Artaxerxes II, he does not go into it given he had already written the Anabasis and given full details though it might be a better read then this book.

A History of My Times for centuries was thought to be “the” history of the end of the Peloponnesian War and the early 4th Century B.C., but after other sources came to light it turns out Xenophon left a lot of things out. This does not mean that the book is totally worthless, however it needs to be read critically.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Continues the telling of the Peloponnesian war from where Thucydides left off. I actually prefer Thucydides style to Xenophon's, to my own surprise.

[J. Robert · Rating 3 out of 5]

Xenophon lacks the heart and soul which made Thucydides so readable. Numerous readers have commented on how biased he is towards Sparta but this is not his major shortcoming. Xenophon's major fault is that he simply isn't that readable. Gone are the speeches showcasing Greek civic virtue, gone are discussions of the advantages of different regimes and gone is a narrative where factual history has all the glory and excitement of the poets. When I read Thucydides, he was every bit as engaging to me as Homer; his neutral presentation of the Peloponesian War was as exciting as reading the Iliad. Xenophon really doesn't compare. His history reads as a series of descriptions and statements about the war with occasional speeches. Unlike in Thucydides, these speeches do not showcase any ideas or values, they mostly read like his descriptions.

To Xenophon's credit, there are bits and pieces here and there which make his history worth reading. The latter two books in particular are a bit more substantial than the rest of the history. However, I found myself zoning out pretty regularly and I'm left with the impression of having read a long series of people and places, none of which really stand out. I really didn't find any of it memorable and you won't find anything like the Melian Dialogue or the speeches given by Sparta at the very beginning of Thucydides' history.

Read it to get the whole history of the war, read it because Thucydides never finished his work or read it because you're genuinely interested in the period. Just don't expect an exciting read.

[Bryan--The Bee’s Knees · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few words about The Landmark Xenophon's Hellenika:

I had not read Xenophon before, but I did read an old Penguin paperback of Thucydides The Peloponnesian War, and comparing the two experiences, there is no contest between them, The Landmark edition winning handily. In fact, I was able to pick up a copy of The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War, and I plan on some point returning to that chronicle in its Landmark edition, as I felt like I was often barely hanging on by my fingernails while reading the Penguin edition.

It is amazing to me the difference--with maps every 3-5 pages, copious footnotes, and over a dozen appendices treating on different aspects of the culture, this edition really made the entire experience so much easier and pleasant. I'm also now on the lookout for The Histories: The Landmark Herodotus, and The Landmark Arrian: The Campaigns of Alexander. To anyone interested in this time period, I can't recommend these editions highly enough.

[AB · Rating 4 out of 5]

Xenophon gets a bad wrap because he is not Thucydides. That’s all true, but to put Xenophon aside because of that is just wrong. There are no great speeches here nor are there profound political and human insights. But Xenophon makes up for that in his interesting style of writing. My attraction towards the Hellenika is twofold.

I find the chaotic period from the Battle of Arginusae to the Battle of Chaeronea to be remarkably interesting. It’s a period that I feel often gets glossed over. Naturally, people’s interests are taken up by the periods that book end this slice of the 4th century: The Peloponnesian war and Alexander’s conquest of Persia. Even in trying to describe this period I cant seem to find a term to describe it. Its perhaps one of the most profoundly liminal stages of classical antiquity. I found myself often looking at this text through the lens of what came before and what is to come. Sparta’s and Athens’ desire for hegemony of Greece is all prevalent and so too are hints of a desire for a Hellenic invasion of Persia. The book begins with Sparta finally besting Athens for the hegemony of Greek affairs and it ends with a Spartan-Athenian alliance whose interest appears to be to not only reclaim their own hegemony but to also put a stop to their hegemonic threat: the upstart Thebans. Xenophon’s narrative exactly encapsulates this feeling: a confusing merry-go-round of alliances, wars, and Persian intrigue. The narrative runs quickly, which is not helped by Xenophon’s propensity to bring up points in the narrative that he forgets to mention earlier (or even willfully ignore) and his tangents of the histories of people and places. I was quite worried at the start of the Hellenika. I knew I was rusty with my Greek history, but the first several chapters of this book were almost completely unintelligible. People and places just flew by. Some battles were even described in as little was one sentence. An apt comparison would be jumping onto a moving treadmill and being unable to keep up. Obviously, this was partly by design. Xenophon clearly wants his history to start off where Thucydides left off.

I can boil down the feeling of this period and Xenophons narrative into one quote from the very end of the book:
While each party claimed to be victorious, neither was found to be any better off, as regards to either additional territory, or city, or sway, than before the battle took place; but there was even more confusion and disorder in Greece after the battle than before.

My other interest with the Hellenika comes from Xenophon himself. While Thucydides comes off as this astute observer of human affairs, Xenophon comes off as an observer of military matters and the psychology of warfare. Xenophon constantly comments on what he deems to be good leadership. Pointing it out in an effect to show the reader how one should behave in a position of leadership. Iphikrate’s sound training decisions on his way to Corcyra are described and praised in detail. So too is Jason’s relationship with his mercenaries. Unsurprisingly, a great focus is placed on the well-formed male body. An army’s (and even generals) worth is told by their fitness. The Greeks contrast their muscular, sunburnt bodies to the pale and flabby bodies of the Persians. Even the leadership of Epaminondas is given a bit of praise from Xenophon.
Mentioning Epaminondas brings up what I felt to be the most interesting element of the Hellenika: What Xenophon chooses to include or not include. Xenophon and his sons, although playing an active role in several parts of the narrative are never once mentioned by name. Xenophon himself is mentioned only as the nameless general recently returned from Persia, and his sons death at the Battle of Mantinea is mentioned only as the “brave cavalry”. Xenophon also has a weird relationship with describing Sparta. He never balks from describing Spartan leadership in negative ways, but his staunch support for Sparta is felt. No where is this more prevalent than his narration of the Thebans.

No one is more negatively described than the Thebans. The crushing defeat of the Spartans at Leuctra is blown off as an act of divine retribution for the Spartan occupation of the Cadmeia. Most interestingly, Pelopidas and Epaminondas are never mentioned in association with Leuctra. Pelopidas is first mentioned by name in slightly shady attempts at making Thebes, and by association himself, the rulers of Greece. Epaminondas only ever really gets a spotlight during his failed reinvasion of the Peloponnese and his untimely death at Mantinea (although Xenophon does give him some much-needed praise). Mostly interesting is Xenophon’s decision to completely forgo describing the liberation of Messene, the establishment of megalopolis, and the formation of the Arcadian and second Athenian Leagues.

Anyway, thats my long winded sperging about Greek history. Would I recommend this book? Yes absolutely. Its an interesting period of Greek history written by an interesting man. Its made me want to look at Xenophon’s other surviving works.

[Rissa (rissasreading) · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.25 - Not necessarily my favorite of the philosophers I've read but definitely interesting. If read kind of like reading a bunch of political history which I found fascinating. It did feel rather biased in my opinion and I found it to be a rather long and dry read. Overall, it's an interesting look into history.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

I bought this book on impulse at an exhibition on the Greeks at the Museum of History (aka Civilization) in Hull in the summer. I got it mostly because I needed to diversify some sources for one of my projects in a high school course I teach, but also because I wasn't incredibly familiar with Xenoophon' broader and lesser known history, the Hellenika. If any one has read Xenophon, it is more likely to be his Anabasis, the narrative of the Greek mercenary army which supported a contender for the Persian throne, who promptly and inconveniently died in battle, and which found its way out Persia largely intact. Xenophon's style is pretty clear and the translation reflects that well. Since it is also a Landmark edition, it also has a lot of maps and pictures which makes following the narrative much, much easier. Given the complexity of fourth century BC Greek history, that is a good thing.

Xenophon treats the history of Greece from around the time that Thucydides leaves off. That means that he covers, first, the disastrous ending of the 2nd Peloponnesian War, the increasingly despotic hegemony of Sparta and the general confusion after its overthrow in 370s. He ends off with the Battle of Mantinea which almost established Thebes as the undisputed hegemon of Greece, except its single best statesman died unexpectedly. It would be Macedon which would exploit the ensuing chaos and establish a unification of Greece under Philip.

The narrative is interesting, if a bit confusing. Xenophon is pretty pro-Sparta and it is clear many of his eye-witness accounts come from Spartan sources (and Athenian, which is hardly surprising, since he is an exile). That means that he sometimes slants his commentary towards making Sparta looking good. He also is known to dislike other figures and downplaying their contributions. One of the good things in this volume is that the editors give you relevant passages from other historians for the period which makes comparison of accounts and the detection of Xenophon's biases easier.

Despite these clear biases (and in ancient, or any, history, it is impossible to avoid them), this volume is well worth reading. Be ready for some complexity in who is doing what to who, but also for an interesting account by someone who had the connections to make a history based on eye-witness accounts.

[Patrick · Rating 2 out of 5]

Xenophon is an essential source for the period he writes about (because we have few other contemporary accounts), but his "history" is so sketchy and biased, omitting, for the most part, any point of view besides that of Sparta, or any actions that might put other states in a better light, and Sparta in a worse one. Despite being a soldier, he is pretty uninterested in tactics and is utterly clueless about strategy and policy. Following Thucydides, he includes speeches intended to sway governments to do one thing or another, but he only includes emotional appeals (which it is hard to believe anyone swallowed), whereas Thucydides always emphasized the hard, rational, and persuasive arguments that politicians might make. After Thucydides, this is a very disappointing and frustrating read.

[Jennifer · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Landmark series produces the best history books bar none. Excellent translations, expansive introductions, a wealth of informative appendices written by experts, glossaries, detailed indices, and maps and footnotes galore. There are even several dozen photographs of significant places and items. The series is the closest thing to a time machine you can find. I just wish they'd hurry up and get the next few volumes done (supposedly in the works are Polybius, Caesar, and more Xenophon).

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read Thucydides in college and a good deal about the Peloponnesian Wars afterwards, enough to know of Xenophon's continuation of the cashiered Athenian general's account. Finally, I got around to reading the thing, seeing what the source for most of our information of the war's culmination and aftermath actually contained.

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

More moralistic than Thucydides. Less amusing than Herodotus.

[Hiéroglyphe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Xénophon reprend de la guerre du Péloponnèse là où Thucydide l'avait laissée. Il prolonge le récit jusqu'à la bataille de Mantinée en -362.

L'histoire est évidemment toujours aussi intéressante. Certains passages sont véritablements épiques (la résistance de Phlionte par exemple, même si l'évènement est anecdotique), mais le style est moins agréable (plus laconique !) que celui de Thucydide, et il manque ce recul et ce désir de comprendre les tenants et les aboutissants de la guerre qui faisait la grandeur de l'autre ouvrage.

La traduction, par Auguste Turrettini, disponible sur Wikisource ne m'a pas non plus semblé à la hauteur...

[Bryan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Xenophon's Hellenika covers the era from the end of the Pelloponesian War between Athens and Sparta to near the beginning of the rise of Macedonia and the conquests of Alexander the Great. He is not nearly as well known as his predecessors, Herodotus, the father of history, and Thucidydes, one of the greatest historians of all time, but his history, with qualifications, is very interesting reading.

As for my opinion, the text is disjointed, there are inconsistencies between Xenophon and other histories in fragments of the era (although Xenophon is the only one to come down to us whole), and this translation is a little too stately. Despite all this, it was a joy to read, as all Landmark ancient histories are. I highly recommend it for the general reader, as the text gives you all you need to read, understand, and, yes, enjoy this classical masterpiece.

[Zachary Rudolph · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Nearly the whole of Greece had been engaged on one side or the other ... But God so ordered things that both parties put up trophies, as for victory, ... both sides gave back the dead under a truce, as though they had won, ... Both sides claimed the victory, but it cannot be said that with regard to the accession of new territory, or cities, or power either side was any better off after the battle than before it. In fact, there was even more uncertainty and confusion in Greece after the battle than there had been previously.”

[Macinly Fram]

“And when he was forced to die and drank the hemlock, they said that he threw the dregs out of the cup, as one does when playing Kottabos and said: ‘And here’s to that delightful fellow, Critias.’”

Hilarious

[Gerasimos Reads · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the masterpieces of Ancient Greek Literature.

[Julia]

Der griechische Geschichtsschreiber Thukydides beginnt seinen Bericht über den Peloponnesischen Krieg mit den Worten: „Thukydides, ein Athener, hat den Krieg zwischen den Peloponnesiern und den Athenern niedergeschrieben.“ Doch ganz stimmt das nicht: Noch bevor er die Kapitulation Athens schildern kann, bricht sein Werk mitten im Satz abrupt ab. Es ist ein anderer Athener, Xenophon, der genau hier ansetzt. Mit seinem Geschichtswerk Hellenika erfüllt er Thukydides’ ursprüngliches Versprechen, den gesamten Krieg zu schildern.

Xenophon, Schüler des Sokrates, wurde als junger Mann von Abenteuerlust nach Kleinasien geführt, wo er sich einem griechischen Söldnerheer anschloss, das im Dienst eines persischen Prinzen stand. Nach seiner Rückkehr wurde er aus Athen verbannt – die Athener betrachteten seine Kooperation mit den Spartanern vor Ort mit Misstrauen. Im Exil auf dem Peloponnes beginnt Xenophon, vermutlich Mitte dreißig, mit dem Schreiben. In diese frühe Schaffensperiode fällt sowohl die Fortsetzung von Thukydides als auch sein Hauptwerk, die Anabasis, in der er den Rückzug des Söldnerheeres schildert – das wohl erste Memoir der westlichen Literaturgeschichte.

An der Hellenika, seinem großen Geschichtswerk, arbeitet Xenophon über zwanzig Jahre. Die ersten beiden Bücher, noch im Stil Thukydides’, führen dessen Bericht über den Peloponnesischen Krieg zu Ende. Die folgenden fünf Bücher erzählen von den anschließenden Kriegen Spartas gegen Korinth und Theben und davon, wie Sparta seine Vorherrschaft allmählich verliert. In diesen späteren Büchern entwickelt Xenophon seinen eigenen Stil: Die für Thukydides typischen Reden weichen Dialogen historischer Personen, möglicherweise beeinflusst durch Sokrates. Statt detaillierter militärischer Berichte rücken kleine Charakterstudien in den Vordergrund, und die thukydideische Objektivität wird durch einen moralisierenden Blick ersetzt.

Gerade dort, wo Xenophon von den großen Bewegungen der Kriegsgeschichte abschweifen kann, um kleine Anekdoten und Beobachtungen über das Menschliche und die Feinheiten der Charaktere einzustreuen, ist er besonders stark. So berichtet er etwa vom Mut des Agesilaos, von der Großherzigkeit des Iphikrates, von der Unerschrockenheit des Anaxibios – und widmet sogar Persönlichkeiten Raum, die nicht im Zentrum des Kriegsgeschehens standen, deren Charakter ihm jedoch bemerkenswert erschien. So etwa Mania, die Witwe eines Satrapen, die nach dem Tod ihres Mannes bei Pharnabazos vorsprach und für sich selbst das Amt des Statthalters erwirkte:

Nach diesen Worten beschloss Pharnabazos, die Frau solle das Amt des Satrapen erhalten. Sobald sie aber Herrin des Landes geworden war, zahlte sie die Abgaben genauso pünktlich wie vorher ihr Mann, und zudem brachte sie Pharnabazos jedes Mal Geschenke, wenn sie ihn aufsuchte. Wann immer er sie besuchte, bereitete sie ihm einen Empfang so prächtig und angenehm wie keiner der anderen Statthalter. Dafür behandelte Pharnabazos sie mit der Ehrerbietung, die hochgestellten Persönlichkeiten gebührt, und zog sie bisweilen zu Rate.

Xenophons Stärke liegt eindeutig in seiner Beobachtungsgabe für die charakterlichen Qualitäten von Menschen. Seine Schwäche hingegen zeigt sich im historischen und politischen Weitblick: Seine Darstellung ist nicht nur parteiisch – deutlich pro-spartanisch –, sondern lückenhaft, sobald er selbst nicht vor Ort war oder keine verlässlichen Quellen hatte. Wer von Herodot oder Thukydides herkommt, wird in dieser Hinsicht enttäuscht sein. Doch gerade die späten Bücher der Hellenika sind sprachlich und inhaltlich leichter zugänglich als die Werke seiner Vorgänger und entfalten ihre eigene, ganz besondere Spannung, die Herodot und Thukydides in dieser Form nicht bieten.

[Richard Bracken · Rating 4 out of 5]

This week there’s been a debate in the news about the American military dropping a second bomb on two surviving Venezuelans clinging to flotsam in the Caribbean. Was the double-tap legal, necessary, or justified? Ancient warriors struggled with similar dilemmas. Near the end of the Peloponnesian war, following a sea engagement, some Athenians were wondering whether to send surviving enemies to trial or summary execution, too.

…by putting to death these men, I say, without a trial, in violation of the law. What is it, pray, that you fear, that you are in such excessive haste? Do you fear lest you will lose the right to put to death and set free anyone you please if you proceed in accordance with the law, but think that you will retain this right if you proceed in violation of the law…? Yes, but you might possibly be putting to death some one who is really innocent; and repentance afterwards — ah, remember how painful and unavailing it always is, and especially when one’s error has brought about a man’s death”.

I’m not in a position to judge the modern day controversy, but it curiously coincided with my reading of the Hellenica. Nevertheless, after reading so much about these ancient warriors I can confidently say the Spartans wouldn’t have found dropping bombs on enemies via remotely operated drones to be very manly.

”Agesilaus gave orders to his heralds that the barbarians who were captured by the Greek raiding parties should be exposed for sale naked. Thus the soldiers, seeing that these men were white-skinned because they never were without their clothing, and soft and unused to toil because they always rode in carriages, came to the conclusion that the war would be in no way different from having to fight with women”.

I’m glad Xenophon took up the pen to resume where Thucydides abruptly left off in his historical work. Otherwise we might not have learned how it was that the Spartans triumphed after 27 years of war. Moreover, how they so quickly lost their influence afterwards. I couldn’t help but wonder about modern day correlations. Human nature hasn’t changed much in 2,500 years.

[Brandon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Xenophon's 'history' really made me appreciate how exceptional Thucydides was, since this 'history' (supposedly a continuation of Thucydides' unfinished history, going from 411 BC to 362 BC) was pretty sub-par. As the editor makes clear, Xenophon was a Spartan partisan, biased against Athens and completely blinded by his hatred for Thebes. In the later years of his history, Thebes became the most powerful city-state in Greece, but Xenophon hardly mentions its two greatest leaders, Epaminondas and Pelopidas. That's because they annihilated the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC and then invaded Laconia, which had been inviolate for centuries. They freed the Messenians (Sparta's helots and the basis of its power) and enabled the neighboring Arcadians to establish the city of Megalopolis as a counter to Spartan power. The Thebans pretty much dismantled the unique system that had enabled Sparta to be such an exceptional city for over 3 centuries. It's interesting that Xenophon, a Spartan partisan, saw in the course of his life (and in the course of his history) Sparta go from its apex after its victory over Athens in the Peloponnesian War in 404 BC to its nadir after the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC.

There were a few notable events recorded in this book.

One was Socrates' defense of the Athenian generals in 406 BC. After much oratorical manipulation and political maneuvering, the Athenian assembly was enraged by the conduct of the Athenian generals after the sea battle of Arginusae. Even though they had won the battle, they chased after the Spartans instead of recovering the dead and injured soldiers (apparently because there was a storm). It didn't really make sense, either militarily or legally, for the Athenians to condemn 10 successful generals to death, but they wanted to anyway. But it turned out that on the day that the assembly was to pass a motion to condemn them to death, Socrates was president of the assembly (which seems beyond strange, since the members of the assembly were chosen by lot and the assembly presidency rotated to a new person every day). Socrates refused to allow the assembly to pass the motion - an act of bravery that I think equals any deed done on the battlefield.

Euryptolemus, the son of Peisianax, and a few others now intervened with a summons against Callixenus for putting forward an unconstitutional proposal, and some sections of the Assembly clearly backed them in this. However, the great mass shouted out that it was an intolerable thing if the people was not allowed to do what it wanted to do. Lyciscus took up this theme and proposed that unless the sponsors of the summons withdrew it, they, too, should be judged by the same vote as the generals. They were thus forced to withdraw the summons. Next some members of the presiding committee declared that they would not put the motion, since it was an illegal one, to the vote. Callixenus then mounted the platform again and put forward the same charge against them, and the crowd shouted out that, if they refused, they should be prosecuted. At this all the members of the committee except Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, were terrified and agreed to put the motion to the vote. Socrates said that he would do nothing at all that was contrary to the law.

(Spoiler alert: the motion to condemn them to death was passed the next day under a different president.)

The next memorable event to me was when the Thebans were raiding Laconia and some Spartans in Athens begged the Athenian assembly for help. It was pretty pitiable to see the once-mighty Spartans begging for help.

They reminded the Athenians that throughout history in every great crisis Athens and Sparta had stood together for the right; Sparta had helped to drive the tyrants from Athens, and Athens had willingly sent help to Sparta when she was in difficulties with the Messenians. And they referred to those happy days when the two were acting in concert, reminding their audience of how together they had driven back the Persians and of how, when Athens was chosen by the Greeks to be the leader of the naval forces and the guardian of the common funds, Sparta had supported the decision; and of how Athens on her side had given her support to the unanimous choice of all the Greeks that Sparta should act as leader by land.

That's when you realize that Sparta hadn't been that bad of a guy after all. In fact, after the Peloponnesian War, Corinth and Thebes wanted to raze Athens to the ground, but Sparta insisted on letting the Athenians off easy because of the role they had played in the Persian Wars. The Spartans may have supported oligarchies over democracies and been self-righteous and overbearing, but they were still always honorable. It was sad to see their ~350-year period of military dominance be obliterated by Thebes. "Are there any others you would be more glad to have as your comrades-in-arms than these men whose countrymen, standing at Thermopylae, chose to a man to die fighting rather than to live and let the barbarian into Greece?"

At this point in history, a combination of harsh rules and endless wars seems to have reduced the population of Spartan citizens to an unsustainably small number. The Spartans could just not recover from the terrible losses at the battles of Lechaeum and especially Leuctra.

When the Thebans are pillaging Laconia:

As for the Spartans, the very sight of the smoke seemed unendurable to the women, who had never seen an enemy in their lives; but the men of the officer class, posted in detachments here and there, guarded this city of theirs, which was without fortifications; they looked few and they were few.

It was kind of sad seeing the Greek city-states fight themselves into oblivion. I don't really understand what drove them to do it. It seems like the major city-states would rather be annihilated rather than ever submit to rule by another. Unfortunately for them, they all seemed to be about evenly matched, and whenever a clear winner began to emerge, the King of Persia was more than happy to tip the scales back in the direction of the loser. Xenophon's history ends with the inconclusive Battle of Mantinea:

In fact, there was even more uncertainty and confusion in Greece after the battle than there had been previously. Let this, then, be the end of my narrative. Someone else, perhaps, will deal with what happened later.

The years from 431-362 (covered by Thucydides and Xenophon) were definitely not happy years for Greece, as the momentary unity created by the Persian Wars devolved into endless warfare. I think it's interesting that one of the things that we admire so much about the Greeks, their obsession with independence and freedom, also gave them so much misery.

[Cinn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tldr: Xenophon is great, read the Landmark edition NOT Cawkwell & Warner’s Penguin edition.

Xenophon is an entertaining writer. His strong conviction in the gods is endearing, as is his Panhellenic flair, his loyalty to his friend Agesilaus, and his stubborn refusal to name people who dislikes- cute. The last moments of Theramenes, Thrasyboulos’ liberation of Athens from the tyranny of the thirty, Derkylidas’ heroism, the hasty retreat of Cleombrotus from Boeotia where his soldiers throw their shields to the wind, which then are left lying there as they fill up with rocks, the constant intrigue as democrats and oligarchs vie for power in cities across the Peloponnese- these are vivid and emotional charged moments. Anyways…

Cawkwell in his intro to the Penguin edition and in his frequent sneering footnotes informs us that Xenophon is a poor historian. This is probably because Xenophon is not a historian. He is a writer of memoirs. Xenophon gives his readers (whom he expected to be familiar with the events) his own spin on the times he lived through, on what he thought was worthy of praise and what was worthy of censure. If you’re looking for a detailed history, see Diodorus and the fragments of the Oxyrenchys Historian (helpfully included in the Landmark edition).

Warner’s translation is stilted and uses weird English words at times, e.g. ‘dictator’ instead of Tyrant (I see why he does this, because Tyrannos has a different connotation than the modern word but it’s still irritating. Would you translate the Latin term dictator as ‘emergency leader’? Sounds weird). At one point he even uses ‘left and right’ to refer to the party of the oligos vs party of the demos- quite a bold statement!

[Joaco · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed Xenophon's recount of the final years of the polis in ancient Greece.

Xenophon's knowledge of the Spartan aristocracy and its culture impregnates the book and provides a magnificent story against a backdrop of war (first the Peloponnesian War and later the Theban war against Sparta).

Unfortunately, Xenophon account has several drawbacks. Firstly, he is nowhere near Thucydides level of method or analysis. This is to say, his bias in favor of the Spartan is clear throughout the book and any events or characters that damaged the Spartan side were either removed or talked down. The passing mentions of Pelopidas and Epaminondas, two of the biggest political and military figures of Thebes and responsible for Sparta's demise as a military power, are but one example of this. The Athenian, Thrasybullus, is yet another one. Despite being THE central figure of Athenian democratic rebirth as well as leading the second Athenian Confederation, he is only mentioned when Athens decides to back Sparta fearing Theban expansionism.

Despite the above, Xenophon provides a thrilling, fast paced chronicle of Spartan victory and later defeat. His inside knowledge also stems from being a first person witness of several military campaigns both in Persia as well as in the Peloponnese. The level of detail of Agesilaus campaign as well as his stances on foreign and domestic policy is superb and an inescapable reference for anyone interested in ancient Greece.

An unexpected fun ride alongside Spartan hoplites.

[Ben Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

While Xenophon’s history of the Peloponnesian War and the continuing hostility of the Greek cities towards each other is not the same masterpiece of writing and thought as Thucydides’, he continues where “The history of the Peloponnesian War” left off and still gives the most important view of what happened— setting the historical stage for Greece’s impending domination by Macedon shortly thereafter.

That is not to say, however, that his account is not engaging and artfully done. The occupation of Corinth struck me most of all, with Xenophon showing the horrific slaughter in the marketplace during a religious festival, and after the Corinthian exiles retook the city, “so many fell in such a short time that the inhabitants, who were used to seeing heaps of grain, wood, and stones, saw instead on that day heaps of corpses.” As a veteran commander and former student of Socrates, Xenophon is well equipped to show the horrors and glories of war with an eye for detail, strategy, and realpolitik.

As always, this Landmark edition offers the best approach for any autodidact looking to grasp the subject, with its treasury of maps, footnotes, appendixes, and even comparisons of certain events with other primary sources such as Diodorus Siculus and the Hellenica Oxyrhinchia.

[zunggg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Xenophon's account of a half-century of complete and total internecine mayhem — the Persians playing Sparta, Thebes and Athens off against each other with very little effort — is summed up thematically in its concluding words, describing the battle of Mantineia:

"And although each side claimed the victory, neither side was seen to have gained anything — no city, territory or increased rule — that they did not have prior to the battle. In Greece as a whole there was more uncertainty and disturbance after the battle than there had been before."

This is the most annalistic of the six Landmark editions, with no real unifying narrative except the Greek addiction to self-sabotage, but I still find it wonderful to read and, thanks to the luxurious maps, annotations, introductions and appendices, actually understand these texts from across a gulf of time.

[S. Alberto ⁻⁷ (yearning) · Rating 3 out of 5]

While Hellenica does offer valuable insight into the aftermath of the Peloponnesian War and the shifting power dynamics in Athens, much of its impact—at least for me—hinges on a few specific moments. I appreciated learning that Thrasybulus is ultimately crowned for his virtue, which helped clarify an important detail I was researching. However, beyond that, the narrative felt somewhat uneven. Xenophon’s prose can be terse and oddly selective, and I often found myself wishing he shared more of Plato’s depth and philosophical clarity. I’ll admit it—I tend to prefer Xenophon when he’s in line with Plato (and when he’s not, I struggle to stay engaged). Still, as a primary source, Hellenica is undeniably useful for reconstructing Athenian history and political sentiment after 404 BCE, even if it didn’t fully resonate with me beyond a few key takeaways.