Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Some highlights from Book 6:

The first 32 paragraphs of Book 6 cover the failure of the Ionian revolt, including the Ionian defeat at the battle of Lade. Why do the Ionians fail?

The Persians retake the west coast of Asia and proceed across the Hellespont into the Chersonese. Herodotus tells us about Miltiades, who will later command the Athenians at the battle of Marathon.

The Persian general Mardonios dismantles the tyrannies of the Ionians and establishes democracies in their place. Huh? Democracies? Why democracies? Herodotus says this proves that the political discussion in Book 3 took place. The Persians continue their advance toward Attica.

The Aeginetans submit to Darius. This irritates the Athenians (see 5.82-86) so they run to the Spartans and accuse the Aeginetans of betraying Hellas. This give Herodotus an opportunity to relate the history and customs of the Spartans. Above all, the Spartans appear to be law-abiding and pious, but their bi-monarchical system of government is not flawless. Herodotus tells how King Demaratos is deposed and replaced by Leotychidas, and then he offers several theories for why Kleomenes went mad. Why so many theories? Which one is right?

Meanwhile, Darius has appointed Datis and Artaphrenes to be the leaders of the invasion of Attica. Preparations include cavalry transport. (One of the abiding mysteries of the Histories is what happened to the Persian cavalry at Marathon.) The Persian departure from the sacred island of Delos is marked by a portentous earthquake. The Persians conquer the Eretrians on Euboea and, on the advice of the Athenian ex-tyrant Hippias, plan to land in Attica at Marathon. The Athenians go to the Spartans for help, but they refuse on religious grounds. The Spartans say they cannot go until the full moon. Herodotus writes, "So they waited for the full moon while Hippias son of Peisistratos was leading the barbarians to Marathon." Reminding us, I think, that the Spartans had previously tried to reinstate Hippias as tyrant of Athens.

When the battle begins, the Persians think the Athenians have been "struck by self-destructive madness" because the Athenian force is small, they are unsupported by cavalry or archers, and they break their phalanx formations to attack on the run. Though Herodotus says the battle lasted a long time, his description is fairly short. The Persians break the Athenian line in the center, where it is weakest, but the Athenians prevail. The Persians run for their ships and sail around Sounion to attack the city of Athens itself, but the Athenians march back quickly enough to defend it. The Persians sail back to Asia.

Why do the Athenians prevail where the Ionians did not?

After describing the battle, Herodotus tells two interesting tales. One is of a soldier named Epizelus who is struck blind in the middle of the battle even though he has not been struck by anything. Epizelus says that in the midst of the battle, he saw a huge hoplite whose beard overshadowed his entire shield and who was standing opposite him. (Who is this hoplite?) The hoplite phantom passed over Epizelus and killed the man next to him. The other story is of a dream that Datis has which causes him to return a stolen statue of Apollo to its proper sanctuary on Delos. Is there a reason Herodotus tells these particular tales in this particular place?

The full moon has risen and the Spartans rush to Athens. They are too late for the battle, but they want to see the Persians on the Marathon battlefield. They do. And then they go home.

A rumor that circulated in Athens accused one of the Alcmeonids of signalling the Persians after the battle to sail around Sounion to attack Athens. Herodotus goes on to write more in defense of the Alcmeonids than he does about the famous battle of Marathon. Here we see Herodotus analyzing hearsay in a way that he frequently does not.

Book 6 ends with the aftermath of the Persian defeat, which includes the fall of the victorious Athenian general Miltiades. Where did Miltiades go wrong?

Sections 15 and 16: The Chians had a rough time during the sea battle, being one of the few fleets who didn't desert the battle. After fleeing on land they get mistaken for marauders instead of fugitives and are all slaughtered.
This really shows the horrors of war. The most "honourable" forces have the worst outcomes to the battle.

Thomas wrote: "Some highlights from Book 6:

The first 32 paragraphs of Book 6 cover the failure of the Ionian revolt, including the Ionian defeat at the battle of Lade. Why do the Ionians fail? "

Over 400 pages in, and more than halfway through Book 6, it felt so exhilarating to finally read about the Persians crossing the Hellespont and battle commencing. Even though we still get the characteristic digressions at the end of Book 6, the action does finally feel more linear and I could sense my reading gather speed.

This might have been inspired by the fast pace of Phidippides who, according to the note at the back of my edition, somehow ran around 150 miles in under 48 hours to warn the other Greeks of the Persian invasion. Apparently, for the past 30 years or so, there's been an annual Spartathlon race held in honour of his feat, or feet.

As to the question of why the Athenians prevail, it seems to have a lot to do with the lack of Persian cavalry at the crucial moment. It's not clear whether this was a logistical error by Datis or Artaphrenes, some clever strategic timing by Miltiades or something else. In any case, if the casualty numbers that Herodotus reports are correct, it was an impressive victory.

The Epizelus story you mention is very curious. It seems to be another portent, along with the earthquake and the catastrophic event that befalls the Persian fleet (6.44). I'm not sure if Herodotus is reporting a popular myth from the war, or whether he truly believes that divine retribution has taken place.

Dave wrote: "As to the question of why the Athenians prevail, it seems to have a lot to do with the lack of Persian cavalry at the crucial moment. It's not clear whether this was a logistical error by Datis or Artaphrenes, some clever strategic timing by Miltiades or something else. "
..."

It appears that the Persians were taken by surprise, so perhaps the cavalry was simply not prepared or had not landed. But it's very puzzling that Herodotus does not say this, if it were so.

And the next Spartathlon is scheduled for September, for anyone who is interested. Only a third of those who start the race finish, but doctors, physiotherapists, and emergency personnel are provided for all participants, so strap on your running sandals and get moving!

http://www.spartathlon.gr/en/the-spar...

Once again Herodotus mentions the importance of omens, this time of disaster. In section 27, the Chians lost 98 out of 100 youths sent to Delphi due to a plague and shortly before a sea fight only one boy of 120 survived the collapse of roof of a school room. The Chians alreadyhad had horrible losses before they even went to war. It must have been a devastating experience to have such horrible losses in so short a time.

I have just finished reading section 52, in which they spy on the mother to discover which twin she favours. They automatically assume that he is the elder twin. It never occurs to them that the mother would prefer the younger, like in the story of Jacob and Esau in the Old Testament.

The madness of Cleomenes is especially interesting to me, mostly because this "madness'' comes from consorting with outsiders (and drinking too much of their wine)

"The Argives say this was the reason Cleomenes went mad and met an evil end; the Spartans themselves say that Cleomenes' madness arose from no divine agent, but that by consorting with Scythians he became a drinker of strong wine, and the madness came from this."

Thomas wrote: "Some highlights from Book 6:

The first 32 paragraphs of Book 6 cover the failure of the Ionian revolt, including the Ionian defeat at the battle of Lade. Why do the Ionians fail?

The Persians re..."

Thomas, I really appreciate your overviews. Someone mentioned on another thread about not always seeing the big picture and I certainly have that same problem many times. I get bogged down in the names & have to go back & see "who's on first", plus I zoom in on some of the smaller details or stories that are interspersed ( like Epizelos') and Herodotus's digressions away from the main story or action also makes it hard for me to keep everything together. So Thanks.

Question: in the battle v112, it mentions that the Athenians were the first of the Hellenes to not only charge at a run but the first "who endured to face the Median garments & the men who wore them..." Were these garments armor?

Ashley wrote: "The madness of Cleomenes is especially interesting to me, mostly because this "madness'' comes from consorting with outsiders (and drinking too much of their wine)

"The Argives say this was the re..."


I am just beginning, I mean wayyy at the beginning, having only just read the front matter in the Holland edition.

But Paul Carteledge, author of the Intro to that edition spent some time talking about the madness of Cleomenes. It stands out in memory, because it was interesting to me. I located it easily, it's in section 5 of the Introduction, entitled, "Dissonance":

Yet Herodotus' account of Cleomenes and his reign is one of the more puzzling, even contradictory, in the whole of the "Histories". On the one hand, Cleomenes was a great and powerful king, who must have reigned for some thirty years (c. 520-490), and at any rate in the late 490s had - for Herodotus (6.61) - the best interests of Hellas at heart. On the other hand, Cleomenes 'did not reign for very long' 95.48), was at le3ast a bit of a madman, only intermittently achieved anything positive in his foreign poloicy and died horribly by self-mutilation - in entirely just, divinely inflicted retribution (6.84). This was, according to Herodotus, for an act of sacrilege, but here too Hreodotus explicityly contradicts the official Spartan version of Cleomenes' end. The explanation of this rather violent narrative dissonance is probably the contradictory nature of his sources - emanating as they did ultimately from the two royal houses that were (as often) at loggerheads with each other. On the one side, there were those who favoured the anti-Persian line taken by Cleomenes, a line that Herodotus himself explicitly approved (6.61); on the other, there were descendants of the 'traitor' king Demaratus (deposed through Cleomenes' machinations and later a favoured courtier of Xerxes), with whom Herodotus could well have conversed in Asia Minor. To this mixture Herodotus brought his own does of conventional piety through his interpretation of the way Cleomenes allegedly met his end. A similar dissonance may be observed in his treatment of the epoch-making introduction of democracy at Athens (section 7).

As promised, in section 7, entitled "Herodotean Judgements", he (Cartledge) mentions him (Cleomenes) again:

... Moreover, when Herodotus related the subsequent decision by the democratic Athenians to support a major revolt of Asiatic Greeks against Persia in 500, he opines (5.97) that this seemed to suggest it was much easier to fool thirty thousand people than a single man (the individual in question being the above-mentioned Spartan king Cleomenes, who, allegedly with the indespensable aid of his shrewd eight- or nine-year-old daughter Gorgo, had rejected outright the Ionian Greeks' request for help, (5.51)

... Like Cleomenes before him, he came to an unhappy end - which for Herodotus, like many Greeks, would have been a clear sign that he was fundamentally a bad or at least an ill-fated person (1.32). But unlike Cleomenes, Pausanias predominantly earns plaudits from Herodotus.

Chris wrote: "Thomas, I really appreciate your overviews. Someone mentioned on another thread about not always seeing the big picture and I certainly have that same problem many times. ..."

I'm glad they're helpful to you. The amount of detail is almost overwhelming and we're going through the book very quickly, so looking at an overview is helpful to me too.

Question: in the battle v112, it mentions that the Athenians were the first of the Hellenes to not only charge at a run but the first "who endured to face the Median garments & the men who wore them..." Were these garments armor?

There is a description of Persian battle dress in the next chapter which I won't spoil, but here is a tiny one: (view spoiler)[tiaras. (hide spoiler)] The fact that the Spartans want to see the dead Persians on the battlefield says something. They must have been quite the spectacle.

Ashley wrote: "The madness of Cleomenes is especially interesting to me, mostly because this "madness'' comes from consorting with outsiders (and drinking too much of their wine)

"The Argives say this was the re..."

It's interesting that of the five possible reasons that Herodotus gives for Cleomenes' madness, four of them are due to his impious acts. Only one, the one that the Spartans favor, is due to a natural cause -- drinking like a Scythian, or lack of moderation, both of which might be considered violations of Spartan rather than divine law. Herodotus himself thinks that it was divine justice, punishment for his treatment of Demaratos.

Thomas wrote: There is a description of Persian battle dress in the next chapter which I won't spoil, but here is a tiny one:

Oh my, can't wait to read more about it!

Chris wrote: "Thomas wrote: There is a description of Persian battle dress in the next chapter which I won't spoil, but here is a tiny one:

Oh my, can't wait to read more about it!"

teehee, You guys make me smile.

It is hard to define a nation or a culture. History, legends and religion are definitely contributing factors. I think that climate plays a role as well. Those who live in harsh regions need to adapt to the conditions, but those who live in easy climates may have more free time for the arts and entertainment.

Patrice wrote: " So why do the Hellenes unify? They also seem diverse. Sparta s not a democracy so that's not it. It seems it's the language that counts. Maybe religion goes with the language, they share the same myths and myths tell s people who they are."

That's a great question. Demaratos tells Xerxes that "in Hellas, excellence is acquired through intelligence and the force of strong law." (7.102) I think the Hellenes unite because it is the smart thing to do. Herodotus describes in detail the hatred that the Athenians and Aeginetans have for each other, but they agree to put their hostility aside for the higher cause of freedom. (7.145) The Spartans are slow to join, but they do. Herodotus seems to suggest that the force of law (which includes religious custom) is stronger than intelligence in Sparta, but the Spartans are finally persuaded by Athenian intelligence.

(Though it should be noted that some of the Hellenes do not join the alliance. The Argives, the Sicilians, and the Corcyrians all refuse, for different reasons. And some, like the Thessalians, are compelled to "medize" in the face of Xerxes' army. )

I'm still back here in book 6, for which I blame several weeks of a busy schedule (traveled to Budapest, among other things) and other books that rose in priority, but my pace of life should be more typical this month, and if I put myself to it I may be able to catch up next week and start the next project with you all.

One of the things I enjoy about Herodotus, and I'm not sure this is the best way to express the point, is how he portrays the unpredictability of fate. Sure, there are oracles and foreshadowings aplenty, but Herodotus's tales are full of strange reversals. To take the anecdote that prompted this thought, the heroic surviving Chians are killed by the Ephesians over a misunderstanding on their way home--a tragic, unexpected, and yet very true-to-life way for them to meet their end.

Rex, I agree with your comment about the unpredicability of fate. The omens were generally quite ambiguous.
I have only been to Budapest once and really enjoyed my time there. It is a beautiful city.

Rex wrote: "One of the things I enjoy about Herodotus, and I'm not sure this is the best way to express the point, is how he portrays the unpredictability of fate."

Do you think that the way fate operates in Herodotus is reasonable? Is there a logos of fate, if I can put it that way? Or is it truly unaccountable?

I think that fate is unaccountable. We can get a general idea of what our future will be like, we can perceive the likely result of a decision we make, but there is no certainty. That is life.

Thomas wrote: "Do you think that the way fate operates in Herodotus is reasonable? Is there a logos of fate, if I can put it that way? Or is it truly unaccountable?"

Interesting question. One one hand, fate is almost by definition the unaccountable: that for which no accessible causal explanation can be given. It is inscrutable and ineluctable. And yet, in Herodotus, fate operates on a level that does not compete (yet sometimes interacts) with human choices. Fate operates not merely through divine agents or oracles, but humans as well, not to mention through chance and accident as in the case of the Chians. I wonder if one could say that fate is itself the logos of history, itself transcendent, finding no explanation beyond itself.

Rex wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Do you think that the way fate operates in Herodotus is reasonable? Is there a logos of fate, if I can put it that way? Or is it truly unaccountable?"

Interesting question. One one ..."

It's also perhaps worth asking how our modern view of fate compares with Herodotus's view of fate, and whether that affects the way we view fate in the Histories.

Herodotus seems to me to be doing with "history" what the Ionian philosophers were doing in the germinal stages of science. But instead of natural forces, Herodotus must deal with the forces that determine the actions of people and nations -- things like geography, custom, religion, and psychology.

Fate is the earliest and most primitive explanation for the cause of human events, and Herodotus is certainly not ready to discard it, but I see him trying to move past it in some ways. Ultimately there must be some kind of logos for history, otherwise events really are random and there is no good reason why small nations become great and great ones are destroyed.

Thomas wrote: "Ultimately there must be some kind of logos for history, otherwise events really are random and there is no good reason why small nations become great and great ones are destroyed. ."

I can see Herodotus wanting to find the logos of history, seeking to consider history as you say in the way the Ionians were doing with the sciences, trying to find underlying meaning.

But OTOH the good reason why small nations become great and great ones are destroyed could be simply because the Moirai have willed it that way. How do we know that isn't the true answer? More to the point, in that society, how does Herodotus now that isn't the true answer, and if he was challenging the idea of the Fates was he in the same danger of committing heresy that Socrates was?

Everyman wrote: "But OTOH the good reason why small nations become great and great ones are destroyed could be simply because the Moirai have willed it that way. How do we know that isn't the true answer"


So why did the Athenians not accept their "fate" after Athens was destroyed and go settle in Italy, as they threatened at one point to do? The prophecies were against the Athenians from the beginning, after all. Not to mention the odds.

Of course, one could say that it was their fate to do this, but then one could ignore all the causes for everything in the universe and simply call it fate. But then why would Herodotus bother with this massive inquiry into the causes of the war if the answer is simply "fate" ? I think Herodotus is suggesting, in a respectful way, that fate is not a cause at all.

Patrice wrote: "Since you mention Socrates...a friend recently brought him up as an example of one of those Greeks who accepted his fate and drank his hemlock. I was shocked by that. It had never occurred to me th..."

After reading Herodotus, I can see the death of Socrates as similar to the death of the Spartans at Thermopylae. Socrates had friends who would have helped him escape, but he didn't because he was unwilling to defy the laws of the Athenians. Just like the 300 at Thermopylae: "Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here obedient to their laws we lie." They died for what they believed in, the laws of their respective cities.

Incidentally, according to Plato, Socrates fought at the battle of Plataea.

Thomas wrote: "But then why would Herodotus bother with this massive inquiry into the causes of the war if the answer is simply "fate" ? I think Herodotus is suggesting, in a respectful way, that fate is not a cause at all."

But as I suggested above, Herodotus does not view causality as a zero-sum game, where anything we attribute to fate takes away from human agency. Nor, in exploring the cultural and historic causes and conditions of the Persian Wars, is Herodotus necessarily trying to diminish fate's role. The constant presence of the oracles, and the way they come true despite or even because of human efforts to elude their doom, suggests otherwise.

Rather, in my view, Herodotus--not necessarily with a "moral" in mind--sees both fate and human choice mutually but non-competitively active in the contours of history. He is not "justifying the ways of fate to men" in a theological sense, as fate is morally neutral and serves "good guys" and "bad guys" evenhandedly; but he depicts fate as a force of reversal and the unexpected, like the medieval wheel of fortunes, the fall of the great and the rise of the small. The mighty Persian emperor with pretensions to unstoppable mastery is felled; the tyrants who believe fate is on their side discover they are mistaken; the quarrelsome Greeks, when fate seems turned against them, find a way opened in the sea. By depicting fate or the laws of history so, Herodotus is not advocating passive indifference, but perhaps hope, and a caution against hubris.

Thomas wrote (@28): "But then why would Herodotus bother with this massive inquiry into the causes of the war if the answer is simply "fate" ? I"

Spot on. A sense of wonder that the Greeks were able to beat apparent fate must have been a major motivation. Herodotus strikes us as modern because human intentions do make a difference. We should not expect him to be consistent, but compare his attitude with that of biblical history as finalized after Babylonian captivity.

There is surprisingly little action coming from the gods in The Histories. They do not seem to want (or to be able) to give life a purpose - in fact they seem to make fun of people constantly trying to guess their intentions. On the other hand, there is fate in a negative sense: people should not overstep their boundaries or there will be consequences.

And then, sometimes accepting fate is a matter of preserving dignity. That may be why Socrates felt he had no real choice, while the Athenians could go against the odds (apparent fate) with their heads up.

Rex wrote: "Rather, in my view, Herodotus--not necessarily with a "moral" in mind--sees both fate and human choice mutually but non-competitively active in the contours of history.."

That's an interesting way of looking at it. But is the human choice really choice if it has to work to produce the pre-ordained fate? Perhaps it works if the Moirai only decree the broad outlines of an individual's fate. Whether on the day you're fated to die you're plundering a village or staying home and enjoying the baths wouldn't matter, you could just as easily die of drowning in the bath as you could of a spear thrust to your vital organs.

I just don't know enough about the way the Fates worked -- or rather I should say the way Herodotus believed the Fates worked -- to know how much scope there was there for free choice.

Patrice wrote: "So Socrates story is a story of accepting ones fate? ."

I'm not sure I would have put it just that way. I saw it as his respect for the law, for the good order of society. If he had faced a different kind of fate, as perhaps death in battle, I think he might have fought against it. But to have refused to take the poison would have been denying his contract of mutuality with his city and society, and denying the duty of obligation to law which is, I think he might have said, the foundation of civilization.

This issue has been an obsession for many classicists. Donald Lateiner in The Historical Method of Herodotus enumerates five "overlapping, sometimes inconsistent systems for the explanation of historical events," and concludes that "the necessity of fate and the existence of human choice are two different, not incompatible, ways of looking the same event." Elsewhere he adds, "Multiple aetiology is supplementary rather than contradictory." Herodotus's indefiniteness about causality, his willingness to allow the metaphysical, political, and cultural dimensions of history coexist, are to his culture strengths, not weaknesses.

A Google search pulls up some other helpful stuff. Michael Grant in The Ancient Historians, according to this post, describes fate in Herodotus as a mysterious force, corresponding to "the divine," working through the deeds of gods and men. This article may also be helpful. The author cites a classicist named Thomas Harrison who proposes a "principle of instability" as the heart of Herodotus's philosophy of history. Here is a relevant quote that seems to be saying much the same thing I was above:

Herodotus' Histories are, in fact, an explanation for why the Greeks and the Persians began warring against each other. Rooted within his narrative of history are examples of fortune that explain how Herodotus views history and, more specifically, how the Greeks were able to overcome the might of the Persian empire. Although the Persians, one could argue, were destined to fall because of Xerxes ambitions, it does not take away from the accomplishment of the ragtag Greek poleis, united to fight their common enemy. The Greeks then become the means through which the Persian Empire meets her end, much like how our other "too fortunate" characters are the recipients of divine wrath through human agents.

Rex wrote: "But as I suggested above, Herodotus does not view causality as a zero-sum game, where anything we attribute to fate takes away from human agency. Nor, in exploring the cultural and historic causes and conditions of the Persian Wars, is Herodotus necessarily trying to diminish fate's role.."

When Artabanos is warning Xerxes about the dangers of his expedition against Greece, he tells him,

So please do not willfully incur such risks when nothing compels you to do so, but instead listen to me. Dismiss this assembly now and then later, after you have considered the matter yourself and have made a decision, declare whatever you think best. For I find that the greatest profit comes from planning with care and deliberation. Then, if you should be impeded by any adversity, your plan is still a good one but fails because of bad luck. On the other hand, one who has done a poor job of planning, even if good luck attends him, nonetheless eventually discovers that his plan was a bad one. 7.10d

And then he goes on to describe how "the god strikes down with his thunderbolt those creatures that tower above the rest." It is not fate, or the gods, or human action alone that determines the course of history, but all of these working with and against each other. The oracle is always ambiguous for a reason.

Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "So Socrates story is a story of accepting ones fate? ."

I'm not sure I would have put it just that way. I saw it as his respect for the law, for the good order of society. If he ha..."

Plato tells us that Socrates did have a choice. He chose to abide by the laws of the city. That settles it for me.

How wonderful that you visited these places, Patrice.