Polybius and Xenophon. Differences and similarities

[teg]

What are the differences and similarities between Xenophon and Polybius as military historians?

[Demetrios]

Nuzhno otshen okuratno tshitat' ...

[Paralus]

What differences do you see?

[teg]

As for me, polybius is far more objective. On the other hand, Xenophon was more experienced in warfare. But Polybius is deeper in the historiosophy of war. Was example, he is one of view ancient historians who gives a detailed discussion about the difference between real reasons of war (aitiai) and the pretext (profasis). There are almost no irrational moments in Polybius (omens, oraculs etc.)

[Paralus]

... he is one of view ancient historians who gives a detailed discussion about the difference between real reasons of war (aitiai) and the pretext (profasis). There are almost no irrational moments in Polybius (omens, oraculs etc.)

Then it appears you have answered your own question! I’d largely agree with you. As I’ve just got through writing elsewhere, Polybius does indeed look for the “proper causes’ of war. He notes the following about Philip II and Alexander his son (3.6.12-14 and 22.18.10):

From both of these facts Philip perceived and reckoned on the cowardice and indolence of the Persians as compared with the military efficiency of himself and his Macedonians, and further fixing his eyes on the splendour of the great prize which the war promised, he lost no time, once he had secured the avowed good-will of the Greeks, but seizing on the pretext that it was his urgent duty to take vengeance on the Persians for their injurious treatment of the Greeks, he bestirred himself and decided to go to war, beginning to make every preparation for this purpose. We must therefore look on the first considerations I have mentioned as the causes of the war against Persia, the second as its pretext and Alexander's crossing to Asia as its beginning…

…For just as I said that Philip, son of Amyntas, conceived and meant to carry out the war against Persia, but that it was Alexander who put his decision into execution…

With respect to the lack of oracles and omens he is much like Thucydides. He also is untainted by adulation or apologia when it comes to Alexander. In fact he accords much of the credit for the fall of Persia and the planning of the battles to the experienced generals of Philip:

Quite apart from what was accomplished during Philip's lifetime, the success achieved after Philip's death by the aid of Alexander indisputably established in the eyes of all their reputations for valour. While we should perhaps give Alexander, as commander-in chief, the credit for much, notwithstanding his extreme youth, we should assign no less to his co-operators and friends, who defeated the enemy in many marvellous battles, exposed themselves often to extraordinary toil, danger, and hardship, and after possessing themselves of vast wealth and unbounded resources for satisfying every desire, neither suffered in a single case any impairment of their physical powers, nor even to gratify their passion were guilty of malpractices and licentiousness; but all of them, one may say, proved themselves indeed to be kingly men by virtue of their magnanimity, self-restraint, and courage, as long as they lived with Philip and afterwards with Alexander. It is unnecessary to mention anyone by name. And after the death of Alexander, when they disputed the empire of the greater part of the world…

Although it might be said that Xenophon was experienced in war that is not to say that Polybius was not. Further, as an historian, Xenophon possesses serious flaws, not least in his unbridled admiration for Sparta and his predilection to thunderous silence on issues that might paint his heroes (and Sparta) in a none too pleasant light.