The Immortals

[hoplite14gr]

(19.27.5) I think the term is pantodapoi phallagitae.
Also Plutrach in Flamininus and Paulus calls the Selefkidic troops:
Syrians with macedonian weapons.

Kind regards

[Vishtaspa]

The exact quote from Diodorus is:

19.27.6: hoi kathoplismenoi men eis ta makedonika, pantodapoi d'ontes tois ethnesin, eis pentakiskhilious

Regards

[Artabanos]

@Paralus

I fully agree that the heavy hoplites were not the reason why the Persian military failed against the Greeks. But that’s neither what the Cyropaedia is claiming, for most parts Xenophon should have had an Persian original, it's more or less the only ancient Persian work that has directly survived.

[quote]Nor is it possible that a “small numberâ€

[artaxerxes]

Hi gang

>>>>
The reason why the Persians failed in Greece was imo because they had switched to cavalry at that time, which was pretty useless in Greece. Furthermore, of course, the Greeks had an excellent heavy infantry force which were also in a larger number than the Persian Immortals as only heavy Persian infantry force (which also left without fighting a major battle). The Ionian Greeks should have been defeated because of the cavalry the Persians were able to field in western Asia Minor.
>>>>>>

I think the reason that the 480-479 campaign failed was logistics, The Persians were facing real supply problems and Mardonios risked a major battle.

He might better have retired further north to be closer to supplies of controlled areas and waited for the Greek alliance to fragment, perhaps a few well-placed bribes and promises to speed this up.

The early phases of Plataea showed that the Persian army had tools to get the better of the Greeks.

I don't think you can say that cavalry are useless in all of Greece - they had a decisive impact in battles after the 480s - that Alex chap did well with them.

And Xenophon tells up parts of Asia Minor were no good for cavalry.

I think the sources show Persian heavy infantry losing to Greeks after a tough fight (where they lose), the key for a Persian general in this period would be to avoid the heavy infantry conflict being decisive in any given battle and use his other arms to win a set-piece battle.

[Paullus Scipio]

ARTABANOS WROTE:-

But that’s neither what the Cyropaedia is claiming, for most parts Xenophon should have had an Persian original, it's more or less the only ancient Persian work that has directly survived.

.....great caution should be used when looking at the Cyropaedia, even though it does contain much interesting detail. Xenophon here is writing a fictionalised fable, a moral tale to educate greeks, ( e.g. the education of Persian boys is an ideal, and sounds suspiciously like the Spartan agogue rather than something genuinely Persian )using a 'fictionalised' Cyrus whose Persian army and Egyptian foe never really existed. The imaginary battle of 'Thymbara', though, served to illustrate Xenophon's thoughts to a large degree on drills and tactics of contemporary Hoplites.
I would not be at all certain that it reproduces any real ancient Persian work.
Is there some other, perhaps Persian, literature/evidence to support this idea?

[Vishtaspa]

I would not be at all certain that it reproduces any real ancient Persian work.
Is there some other, perhaps Persian, literature/evidence to support this idea?

Here is a excellent Status Quo and general scholar feeling about Cyropaedia:

(Enter keyword "cyropaedia")

http://www.iranica.com/newsite/home/index.isc

Cyropaedia is fiction, and serves Xenophon's purpouses (cited by Paul M) but here (and more in Herodotus) we found iranian or eastern oral influence. In fact, there was no writen ancient iranian literature at all (only Avesta and inscriptions), but were a very rich oral (epic, poetic...) tradition, as later literature like the superb Shah namah demonstrates.(I must say that also some parts of Avesta contain legendary and epic passages) In fact, tales from both Herodotus and Xenophon have been linked with passages in Ferdowsi's Shah namah (Book of Kings, in which mythical, achaemenid and sassanian times are told).
Cyropaedia has many historical mistakes, and sometimes we are sure comparing actual babilonian or old persian inscriptional reports. But this unexactity is what one can expect from oral and traditional sources. Other "sources" of course, were invented or reelaborated by Xenophon serving his purpouses.

regards

[Paullus Scipio]

Inyigo wrote:-

Cyropaedia has many historical mistakes, and sometimes we are sure comparing actual babilonian or old persian inscriptional reports. But this unexactity is what one can expect from oral and traditional sources. Other "sources" of course, were invented or reelaborated by Xenophon serving his purpouses.

....in short then, much as I wrote...and it is difficult/impossible to separate out the 'nuggets' of information which Xenophon might have picked up from Iranian oral tradition in his 'Persian Travels' from his imaginary details about 'Persians'......

[Vishtaspa]

Unfortunately, yes. We can see traces of iranian material (some accurate things, some very confusing ones...) but Xenophon arranged and used them as he pleased...
I completely agree with Paul, we must have great caution regarding Cyropaedia (for iranists is very interesting, much more now that in past decades, for historians a very irregular source). But as Pierre Briant uses to write: we can't choose our sources... big truth.

regards

[Sean Manning]

I wrote this earlier, but see that criticizing the Cyropaedia has already been covered.

The Cyropaedia is more a text for teaching leaders than a history. When Xenophon has Cyrus' Persians win because they close quickly to hand-to-hand without shooting arrows or throwing javelins first, I think he does this because he wants to teach readers that a phalanx will always beat missile troops on open ground, not because he believed that Cyrus' Persians fought that way. Persians were brave and skilled at fighting hand-to-hand but they weren't specialized in it the way Greek hoplites were.

Some parts are useful, but it is very hard to know what is historical and what fictional or mythical.

[Paralus]

Artabanos\\n[quote]@ Paralus[quote]Nor is it possible that a “small numberâ€

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi gang

Hi David,

Please enter your real name into your sig, will you? It's a forum rule.

[Artabanos]

I have read the Shahnameh, the main work on Iranic that has survived, therefore I fell completely free to disagree with scholars that claim that Xenophon wanted to show the ideal ruler and that everything is explainable without the Persians.
My copy of the Cyropaedia (Kissinger) for example has very ridiculous comments by the commentator, I really think that this "scholar" have never read Herodotus, not to speak of the Shahnameh.

Paullus Scipio:

( e.g. the education of Persian boys is an ideal, and sounds suspiciously like the Spartan agogue rather than something genuinely Persian )

I disagree. As first I think the Persian and Greek cultures were not that different, the Persians thought, e.g. Apollo were their Mazda, the Spartans as the masters of Greece their equals and many other examples, we also know that the Greeks knew about the Iranics before their historical contact with them.

In Herodotus we find the same strict doctrines for the youths, clear rules which are only given in much greater detail by Xenophon.
Actually we can expect that Herodotus himself knew about the Persian work or oral tradition about Cyrus of the Cyropaedia, due to the very last part of the Histories; Herodotus tells that Cyrus demanded the Persians not to change their harsh and difficult life in the Persis to remain rugged. Like in the Cyropaedia, Cyrus appears as ideal "father" of the Persians with his rules for further generations.
I don't say that the Cyropaedia is the biography of Cyrus; it’s most likely a propaganda work for the Persians soldiers about their glorious ancestors.

Paullus Scipio:

using a 'fictionalised' Cyrus whose Persian army and Egyptian foe never really existed.

That could be very well a report from Cyrus times, when Persians didn't have much information about the Egyptians or better said anyone except their direct neighbours. Otherwise Xenophon make pretty hard claims when saying that those defeated Egyptians were settled around the east Mediterranean coast and "every one who went there can still see the descendants of that defeated Egyptian army", I don't think he would have ever made such a claim if it was just a tale.

Paullus Scipio:

The imaginary battle of 'Thymbara', though, served to illustrate Xenophon's thoughts to a large degree on drills and tactics of contemporary Hoplites.

If we look at the seal of the fully equipped Persian heavy infantryman we can assume that there really was a heavy hand to hand fighting infantry force, there is no reason to think that it's Greek just because it’s similar. Those games the Persians played are one reason why the Persians became so strong during actual battle.

Paullus Scipio:

Is there some other, perhaps Persian, literature/evidence to support this idea?

The Shahnemeh. Actually we find direct reports in the Shahnameh which are very/too similar the story about Cyrus' youth in Herodotus' Histories.

But the actual point is that the whole cultural similarities in the Cyropaedia and the Shahnemh simply gives the strong feeling that the base of the Cyropaedia was something like a "Cyrosnameh". The traditional hunting stories and the report of the "kings hunt" remind me very much to the Shahnameh. The Shahnameh is a huge work and I really can't give clear examples of similarity at the moment, it would be a very time-costly work to do (I might do it some day). But there is a English translation of the Shahnemeh which I recommend to everyone who has greater interest in that matter.

Vishtaspa:

Unfortunately, yes. We can see traces of iranian material (some accurate things, some very confusing ones...) but Xenophon arranged and used them as he pleased...

Agreed, it's surely not a direct copy of a Persian work, Xenophon made something own out of it, but when he goes into detail and talk about the basic story then we can expect Iranic material.
Generally Xenophon had Iranic works or knew about oral stories.

For example he knew about a complex "royal" name for Cyrus' brother, which might only be explainable trough the Persians which knew of his old-Iranic name or title.

I also think that its likely that Xenophons "on horsemanship" was mainly based on the information he got from the Persians. Doctrines/rules about cavalry were integral parts of the Iranic military, it were actually proto-Iranic's who brought precise doctrines on cavalry and cavalry training to the middle east and these were taken over by the local people due to their high value. But most interesting are Xenephons recommendations on the equipment which the clearly should have and with the typical neck and throat protection etc. these should be clearly of Iranic origin. It can be assumed that the Persian horsemanship and cavalry doctrines were those of the Aryans in the middle east of the 2th millennium BC, which should have become very complex at the time of the Persians (and very wide speared among Persian soldiers).


[quote]
Paralus:


The Persians, under the king of Ansan (Cyrus I) took down the Median kingdom. Ansan has a long history and those that we know as the “Persiansâ€

[Vishtaspa]

But there is a English translation of the Shahnemeh which I recommend to everyone who has greater interest in that matter.

That of Dick Davis, perhaps? I have a 400page english resume by Reuben Levy, but I'm strongly interested in a good translation of the whole work. I can read a little farsi, but not yet enough to Ferdowsi.

One of the "best" translations of Cyropaedia in my country have ridiculous notes too, and no knwoledge about iranian matters. But worst is a famous Herodotus translation, when talking about iranian religion, the translator sais "it is a semitical religion"!!
A well documented and modern research about Herodotus/Xenophon and Shahnameh would be great and provide us many clues. But Shahnameh is many times Illiad and Odissey together!

Regards

[Artabanos]

@Vishtaspa

That of Dick Davis, perhaps?

Yes, but he is no historian, rather a commercial writer; he sometimes simply didn't translate parts... His terminology is of course also a little "public mainstream", which lets some valuable details not being exactly translated. However it's the best translation there is afaik; good enough to get an overall picture and its parallels to Germanic genesis and tales is also very interesting.

I can read a little farsi, but not yet enough to Ferdowsi.

Neither can I, Ferdowsi's Parsi is so complex and pure that even ordinary Iranian living in Iran would have quite some problems to understand and furthermore it’s a poem.

But worst is a famous Herodotus translation, when talking about iranian religion, the translator sais "it is a semitical religion"!!

Yes it's somewhat scary. The Kissinger commentator of by Cyropaedia copy, seems to have read Socrates and fell in love with him, he always wants to combine the stories with Socrates philosophy in some way. But Socrates seems to be a must-have for each "scholar" these days.

A well documented and modern research about Herodotus/Xenophon and Shahnameh would be great and provide us many clues.

Somehow no one sees the need for looking at such an important work. It seems to me that the established theories about the rise and fall of the Persians are final and no one cares to research further or go into another direction...

Regards

[bachmat66]

But there is a English translation of the Shahnemeh which I recommend to everyone who has greater interest in that matter.

That of Dick Davis, perhaps? I have a 400page english resume by Reuben Levy, but I'm strongly interested in a good translation of the whole work. I can read a little farsi, but not yet enough to Ferdowsi.

But Shahnameh is many times Illiad and Odissey together!

Regards

czolem
(Polish knightly greeting, from the time of the winged hussars ),

You could check the google books - this is best so far, I think.
they have in the poem form,as the original, from the early XX century English of the brothers Warner opus magnum so far volume II and III
http://books.google.com/books?id=OAE7AA ... ISO-8859-1
also look at this book
Persian Literature
http://books.google.com/books?id=58xGgB ... q&as_brr=1
they also used to have entire Tabari on google books but lately cannot find it..