Welcome earthlings to the Awful Book of the Month! In this thread, we choose one work of Resources: Project Gutenberg - http://www.gutenberg.org - A database of over 17000 books available online. If you can suggest books from here, that'd be the best. SparkNotes - http://www.sparknotes.com/ - A very helpful Cliffnotes-esque site, but much better, in my opinion. If you happen to come in late and need to catch-up, you can get great character/chapter/plot summaries here. For recommendations on future material, suggestions on how to improve the club, or just a general rant, feel free to PM me. Past Books of the Month [for BOTM before 2014, refer to archives] 2014: January: Ursula K. LeGuin - The Left Hand of Darkness February: Mikhail Bulgalov - Master & Margarita March: Richard P. Feynman -- Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! April: James Joyce -- Dubliners May: Gabriel Garcia Marquez -- 100 Years of Solitude June: Howard Zinn -- A People's History of the United States July: Mary Renault -- The Last of the Wine August: Barbara Tuchtman -- The Guns of August September: Jane Austen -- Pride and Prejudice October: Roger Zelazny -- A Night in the Lonesome October November: John Gardner -- Grendel December: Christopher Moore -- The Stupidest Angel 2015: January: Italo Calvino -- Invisible Cities February: Karl Ove Knausgaard -- My Struggle: Book 1. March: Knut Hamsun -- Hunger April: Liu Cixin -- 三体 ( The Three-Body Problem) May: John Steinbeck -- Cannery Row June: Truman Capote -- In Cold Blood (Hiatus) August: Ta-Nehisi Coates -- Between the World and Me September: Wilkie Collins -- The Moonstone October:Seth Dickinson -- The Traitor Baru Cormorant November:Svetlana Alexievich -- Voices from Chernobyl December: Michael Chabon -- Gentlemen of the Road 2016: January: Three Men in a Boat (To say nothing of the Dog!) by Jerome K. Jerome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwwY9y6O3hw Current: The March Up Country (The Anabasis) of Xenophon This is one of my favorite books of all time. It's entertaining, it's action-packed, it's philosophical, it's political, it's historical. It's free online here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1170/1170-h/1170-h.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1170 The nutshell version is this: quote:Xenophon was a student of Socrates, yes, that Socrates. He was a young kid and wanted to be a soldier but the Pelopponesian Wars had just ended and his city lost. One of his buddies was leading a mercenary army, and being young and ambitious, he joined up (after asking Socrates' advice. Sortof.) Don't be afraid that because this is a "classic" it'll be too difficult: Xenophon was a military man and he wrote like one -- plainly, simply, straightforwardly. If you can read a modern fantasy novel, you can read this too -- it's all swords and gods and battles, so pretty much just the same thing you're already used to! Historical Context: This mercenary expedition took place in a historical lull. Prologue: Roughly eighty years before, Athens and Sparta, together, leading the rest of the greek city-states, had defeated the invading Persian army and navy. If you saw Frank Miller's 300, that fight. This was a huge deal, because the Persian army was many, many times larger, and the Greeks won basically just through superior training, skill, and tactics. There aren't many modern analogues to the scope of this victory, but if you've played Civilization, imagine one unit of Hoplites defeating thirty units of spearmen and chariots. After that, though, the Greeks spent the next few decades fighting each other -- Athens and Sparta fighting over who was top dog. For a long time, Athens routinely won the sea battles and Sparta won the land battles; eventually AThens hosed up and lost (they weren't helped by a plague). So it's a few years after the end of that (semi-civil, greek against greek; internecine) war) is over. Athens is still the acknowledged leader in terms of philosophy and the arts and sciences and mathematics and knowledge and so forth, but Sparta is in charge. Sparta set up a puppet government in Athens that ruled it for a few years, but they get kicked out in 403. Now it's 401 BC. Athens -- and every other city in Greece -- have a lot of trained soldiers left, but nobody wants to fight any more because Sparta has already won and there's no point. So where to go? Well, we kicked those Persians' asses, right? Maybe try that again? Aftermath: The other half of the historical context is what happened afterwards. After Xenophon's group fought their way back, they had effectively proved that a mixed Greek force could march at will, undefeated, through Persian territory. That gave someone an idea, and that someone was Alexander the Great. xenophon directly inspired Alexander and Alexander kept a copy of Xenophon's book with him during his conquest of Persia. That makes this book arguably one of the single most influential books in the entire course of world history. Without Xenophon, there might have been no Library at Alexandria, no Greek conquest of Persia, no preservation of Greek philosophers and writings through the European dark ages, no Renaissance, etc. About the Author quote:Xenophon (/ˈzɛnəfən, -ˌfɒn/; Greek: Ξενοφῶν [ksenopʰɔ̂ːn], Xenophōn; c. 430 – 354 BC), son of Gryllus, of the deme Erchia of Athens, also known as Xenophon of Athens, was a Greek historian, soldier, mercenary,[1] and student of Socrates. While not referred to as a philosopher by his contemporaries, his status as such is now a topic of debate. He is known for writing about the history of his own times, the late 5th and early 4th centuries BC, especially for his account of the final years of the Peloponnesian War. His Hellenica, which recounts these times, is considered to be the continuation of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War. His youthful participation in the failed campaign of Cyrus the Younger to claim the Persian throne inspired him to write his most famous work, Anabasis. Discussion, Questions & Themes: One of my favorite things about this book is that it's a really compelling microcosm of Greek political theory and the practical application of Greek philosophy. The army is a mixed bag of Spartans, Athenians, etc., and they all have to get along. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. There aren't any firmly fixed leaders so keeping the leadership is a constant struggle (and one Xenophon doesn't always succeed at). All those pretty theories Xenophon learned from Socrates get put to the practical test -- and a test that lives depend on, because if the mercenaries lose their cohesion, if they fall apart as a fighting unit, they'll all get killed. Pacing Try to go section by section and post as you read through the book if you can. There are some action elements and a bit of suspense even to this book so don't rush to the end. That said, it's also 3000 years old, so no complaining if people post spoilers. References and Further Reading There are an almost infinite amount of other things to read that relate one way or another to this book. I'd personally recommend Mary Renault's historical fiction set in Ancient Greece, some of which (e.g. The Last of the Wine) features Xenophon as a minor character. If you have other suggestions for good companion reading, please post those suggestions in the thread. A lot of modern fiction is to one extent or another inspired by this book (including, as per the clip above, the 1979 movie The Warriors, which transposed the action to a single day in New York). Final Note: If you have any suggestions to change, improve or assess the book club generally, please PM or email me -- i.e., keep it out of this thread -- at least until into the last five days of the month, just so we don't derail discussion of the current book with meta-discussion. I do want to hear new ideas though, seriously, so please do actually PM or email me or whatever, or if you can't do either of those things, just hold that thought till the last five days of the month before posting it in this thread. Thanks, and I hope everyone enjoys the book! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Feb 3, 2016 |
|
# ? Feb 3, 2016 05:43 |
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2024 23:44 |
|
Is there a recommended translation? I've been looking at The Expedition of Cyrus by Robin Waterfield.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2016 10:52 |
|
Crashbee posted:Is there a recommended translation? I've been looking at The Expedition of Cyrus by Robin Waterfield. Can't go wrong with the Loeb edition of Anabasis. Includes the story in Greek as well.
|
# ? Feb 3, 2016 18:37 |
Crashbee posted:Is there a recommended translation? I've been looking at The Expedition of Cyrus by Robin Waterfield. Good question. Good starting place for discussion! The free version is by Dakyns, from the 1800's. First version I ever read was the Rex Warner translation from the Penguin Classics series, and I've always had a fondness for it, but I've no idea how authoritative it is. Also, these quotes from reddit: quote:I don't know which is best, but Project Gutenberg has Anabasis by Xenophon translated by Henry Graham Dakyns (1838–1911), a British translator, and The First Four Books of Xenophon's Anabasis by Xenophon literally translated with explanatory notes by the Reverend John Selby Watson (1804-1884), a British classical translator and murderer noted for his plea of insanity as his defense against the murder charge. Those translations are freely available for download in a variety of electronic formats or can be read online. quote:Perseus has an English translation here: I wish the Landmark series would come out with their edition but I've been waiting years and they haven't.
|
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 03:03 |
Oh, it turns out that Italo Calvino, who we have featured before on BotM as the author of Invisible Cities, wrote a big essay on why you should read the Anabasis. I'll quote a chunk of it:quote:Reading Xenophon's Anabasis today is the nearest thing to watching an old war documentary which is repeated every so often on television or on video. The same fascination that we experience when watching the black and white of a faded film, with its rather crude contrasts of light and shade and speeded-up movements, emerges almost spontaneously from passages such as this:
|
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 03:52 |
|
You should also point out that The Warriors is based on this. Glad this was the pick for BotM, gonna read the poo poo out of it. Been meaning to read it for a while really.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 04:44 |
Interesting website on Xenophon as a philosopher:quote:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/xenophon/
|
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 05:01 |
|
I read this a few months ago and I'm too busy to read it all again, but I can remember some thoughts. First off, I thought the numbers (and particularly the victories attached to those numbers) in the battles at the start seemed a little implausible. Overturning odds of ten or more to one and so on, a million-man army for the emperor. Can history goons input on how accurate the book is thought to be to the real events? Second off, I enjoyed the long gushing eulogy for the barbarian prince who lied, died, and left them stranded in Persia. Xenophon stands by his employers. Third off, when you see him, yes, it's that Socrates.
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 12:33 |
Peel posted:First off, I thought the numbers (and particularly the victories attached to those numbers) in the battles at the start seemed a little implausible. Overturning odds of ten or more to one and so on, a million-man army for the emperor. Can history goons input on how accurate the book is thought to be to the real events? I've had the same thought before. Since you asked, and because I had already found all the links for this thread, I went and pulled up the text on Perseus: quote:1 The number is probably overstated. Ctesias, the King's Greek physician (see viii. 26), is said by Plutarch (Artax. 13) to have given it as 400,000 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0202%3Abook%3D1%3Achapter%3D7%3Asection%3D11 So they're defeating odds of four to one, not ten to one. Of course, that's just this battle. Once all the other Persians abandon them, they are outnumbered by crazy amounts. Pulling up that quote from Plutarch: quote:13 1 And now the thirty messengers came riding up with joy and exultation in their faces, announcing to the king his unexpected good fortune. Presently, too, he was encouraged by the number of men who flocked back to him and formed in battle array, and so he came down from the hill under the light of many torches. 2 And after he had halted at the dead body of Cyrus, and its right hand and head had been cut off (in accordance with a law of the Persians), he ordered the head to be brought to him; and grasping it by the hair, which was long and bushy, he showed it to those who were still wavering and disposed to fly. These were amazed, and made obeisance to the king, so that very soon seventy thousand men were about him and marched back with him to their camp. 3 He had marched out to the battle, as Ctesias says, with four hundred thousand men. But Deinon and Xenophon say that the army which fought under him was much larger. As to the number of his dead, Ctesias says that it p157was reported to Artaxerxes as nine thousand, but that he himself thought the slain no fewer than twenty thousand. This matter, then, is in dispute. But it is certainly a glaring falsehood on the part of Ctesias to say that he was sent to the Greeks along with Phalinus the Zacynthian and certain others. 4 For Xenophon knew that Ctesias was in attendance upon the king, since he makes mention of him and had evidently read his works; if, then, Ctesias had come to the Greeks and served as an interpreter in so momentous a colloquy, Xenophon would not have left him nameless and named only Phalinus the Zacynthian.15 The truth is that Ctesias, being prodigiously ambitious, as it would seem, and none the less partial to Sparta and to Clearchus, always allows considerable space in his narrative for himself, and there he will say many fine things about Clearchus and Sparta. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Artaxerxes*.html That text though seems like it has its reasons for being suspected also. I think the best we can probably say is that the lower bound was 400,000 and the upper bound was a million. Another estimate would probably come from the size of the armies Alexander faced, but I can't check those right now. edit: just checking Wikipedia, Darius's forces at Gaugamela, vs. Alexander a generation later, were: quote:According to Arrian, Darius's force numbered 40,000 cavalry and 1,000,000 infantry,[28] Diodorus Siculus put it at 200,000 cavalry and 800,000 infantry,[29] Plutarch put it at 1,000,000 troops[30] (without a breakdown in composition), while according to Curtius Rufus it consisted of 45,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry.[31] Furthermore, according to Arrian, Diodorus, and Curtius, Darius had 200 chariots while Arrian mentions 15 war elephants.[28] Included in Darius's infantry were about 2,000 Greek mercenary hoplites.[5] So we get a similar range there. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:16 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
# ? Feb 4, 2016 14:34 |
Minor mind-blowing moment for me on my re-read last night. The kindle edition I'm reading now has different footnotes from versions I'd read previously, and points out that the general Menon in this book (who gets executed by the Persians, and who Xenophon states was just out for himself and implies might have betrayed the other generals) is the same person as the Meno of the Socratic Dialogue where Socrates discusses the meaning of virtue. quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno So Meno wasn't just an abstract talking head; he was someone everyone in Attic Greece knew was an out-for-himself jackass who had possibly died in torture as a result of his greed and conniving. So when Socrates says in the Platonic dialogue that not everybody can tell good from evil, it's actually a cutting barb against Meno as an individual. Similarly, when Xenophon starts ranting about what a selfish jackass Meno was, he wasn't just talking; he was saying something that must have been common knowledge in his circles. Do we have any classical scholars who can tell me if I'm right about this analysis or not?
|
|
# ? Feb 5, 2016 15:00 |
|
The Meno is one of Plato's most infuriating dialogues, to me at least, and I've probably blanked out large portions of it in my head since I last read it. (Approaching the title of 'most infuriating Platonic dialogue' is a hell of a feat, given the competition). Still, I would relate that step in the dialogue more to Socrates-Plato's obsession with the truth of things, and the concept of ideals. Knowledge is such an important concept throughout Plato's oeuvre that the possibility of ignorance in regards to virtue would necessarily be raised in this case. The Protagoras trod similar ground concerning ignorance of the good when discussing if anyone did evil willingly. Although I don't think that the point was raised because of Meno, it's possible that Meno was included because of this point. When writing up a dialogue on this subject, Plato might have settled on Meno as good candidate for the recipient, since he managed to both be a pupil of Gorgias and the various sophists, and also was apparently known as this nasty piece of work. Give a bit of extra bite to the message. I've read the Anabasis in English already, but I'm going to set myself the challenge to read it only in the Greek this time. If there are weird translations going on or whatever, I can be on call to try to sort that out by checking the original.
|
# ? Feb 5, 2016 20:04 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Minor mind-blowing moment for me on my re-read last night. I think it's a plausible reading. If you recall, the opening of Meno isn't Meno asking what virtue is, he asks whether or not virtue is gained through teaching, practice, or in some other way. Socrates says that neither he nor anyone else he's ever met knows what virtue is, and the two briefly quarrel over whether or not that includes Meno's teacher, the famous sophist Gorgias. When Socrates asks Meno for his definition of virtue, it boils down to skill at politics. If you read between the lines a little, it starts to sound like Meno wants Socrates to validate his teacher and reaffirm that Meno was, in fact, taught virtue. So I think it's not an accident that Plato chose Meno as Socrates' opponent for that discussion and part of what the dialogue is doing is suggesting that the followers of the sophists might have selfish motives for wanting to learn from them.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2016 02:41 |
|
I'm about halfway through this, the book really picks up once Xenophon is introduced as a character, before that it's mostly historical facts that are no doubt important, but lacking in personality.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2016 21:02 |
|
I came across ToposText today, which has the Perseus translation with clickable links for a lot of place names in the text which bring up Google Maps with where those lie on a modern map. It's not perfect (there are a lot of placenames that aren't yet links) but if you're looking for an online reading experience that's more like the Landmark editions of Herodotus/Thucydides, it might be useful.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 03:46 |
|
I'm going a bit slow and have only read Book 1 so far, but I made a few notes to myself/questions to share with the thread: What do people think about Cyrus? In Greek stories, even in other histories, characters tend to be presented as either heroic figures or as tragic ones. When I was reading book 1, it struck me that Xenophon doesn't really present Cyrus as a great person in every regard. He has some characteristics that I think could be said to be heroic, sure, but what he gets singled out for is his generosity and his ability to recognize and make use of talents in others. Is that what Xenophon is suggesting is the model for heroic leadership? Cyrus's answer to most of his leadership-related problems is, more or less, "I'll make you rich when we win". Does this say anything about him as an individual, or is this just how things were done? The obvious question in the story about Orontas -- did Cyrus have him killed? Would it mean anything if he did or didn't? Related to these: Is he going to be contrasting Cyrus as a "Persian" leader with "Greek" leadership? Xenophon mentions that people took Cyrus's crossing of the river at Thapsacus as being an omen of his destiny to become king. But Cyrus fails; is this a criticism of omens? Prior to the battle scene at the climax, Cyrus tells Xenophon that omens and sacrifices were made and favorable, but those aren't mentioned in the text otherwise. I was intrigued by a bit of detail that Xenophon points out when the armies are preparing for combat -- the Persians don't wear headgear when they fight. Why not? Is this just an interesting anthropological detail, some attempt to otherize the Persians, or is it significant? Xenophon doesn't seem overly fond of 'fun facts' like Herodotus, so it kind of stuck out.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 04:14 |
Tao Jones posted:
Wow, I'm glad you singled that out. Throughout most of the text, everything is incredibly omen-driven, to the point that Xenophon almost seems insane. There's one particular point where the army doesn't do poo poo for like five days despite having no food because the omens tell them to stay put. In the past I'd always put that down to Xenophon writing it 30 years after everything happened and just retroactive memory justifying things, but it was a topic I was definitely hoping someone would bring up because it's incredibly strange to a modern reader. Even within that framework though that passage really stands out. I think it may be the only completely unfulfilled omen in the whole book. quote:
Probably my fantasy reader's background but GRRM makes a point of having characters that don't wear helmets get facial scars. Maybe he's foreshadowing Cyrus's fate here? As to Cyrus as a model of leadership, Xenophon also wrote a Cyropaedia, but that was of Cyrus the Great, not this Cyrus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyropaedia Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
# ? Feb 9, 2016 04:34 |
|
If you have hoopla through your local library they have "The Persian Expedition" by Xenophon published by Blackstone Audio and read by Pat Bottino. I've been meaning to get around to the Anabasis for, uh, decades, thanks to this thread, long commutes and a handy format I'm gonna do it this time.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2016 16:18 |
|
Tao Jones posted:I was intrigued by a bit of detail that Xenophon points out when the armies are preparing for combat -- the Persians don't wear headgear when they fight. Why not? Is this just an interesting anthropological detail, some attempt to otherize the Persians, or is it significant? Xenophon doesn't seem overly fond of 'fun facts' like Herodotus, so it kind of stuck out. My translation claims it's probably an addition from some later editor, not Xenophon himself.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2016 20:21 |
|
I read Book 2. Didn't think all that much was interesting narratively, but some background: Promising safety and then attacking was a taboo for the Greeks. The idea of guest-friendship is based on mitigating it. Guest-friendship was a sort-of ritual where someone in a desperate situation pledges to enter into a guest-friend relationship with someone else who can protect them and keep them safe until danger passes. This creates a tie between the descendants of the guest-friend and host. As an example of the power of guest-friendship, in the Iliad, the hero Diomedes is possessed by Athena and on a killing rampage, but when he encounters someone whose ancestor his own ancestor was guest-friends with, he snaps out of it. One of the things Zeus rules over is the guest-friendship relationship, and breaking it is the kind of thing that gets the Furies sent after you. So this book is, I think, meant to evoke a primal "THOSE PERSIAN FUCKERS!" emotional beat that isn't there so much for us. It's interesting that Xenophon mentions that Proxenus was a student of Gorgias of Leontini. Plato tells us that Gorgias also taught Menon. Gorgias was a sophist who has a Platonic dialogue named after him in which, among other things, Gorgias and Socrates discuss whether rhetoric has the power to make its practitioners just. I wonder why the Great King tortured Menon for a year. I mean, obviously he's a bad dude and so by story-logic he deserves it, but it seems like a weird thing for the King to care about doing. I also wonder why Xenophon calls out everyone's age in the post-mortem summary of their characters, except Menon.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 03:36 |
|
Nanomashoes posted:I'm about halfway through this, the book really picks up once Xenophon is introduced as a character, before that it's mostly historical facts that are no doubt important, but lacking in personality. \I've3 had this book on audio for ages but fall asleep every time i try to get into it. I think I may need to view the text to force my eyes and consciousness to stay open. I have however run across the march of ten thousand a zillion times in shoddy SF&F novels so I probably know everything - except I'km not sure if they had dragons or not.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 05:24 |
|
Tao Jones posted:Xenophon mentions that people took Cyrus's crossing of the river at Thapsacus as being an omen of his destiny to become king. But Cyrus fails; is this a criticism of omens? Prior to the battle scene at the climax, Cyrus tells Xenophon that omens and sacrifices were made and favorable, but those aren't mentioned in the text otherwise. ... It would be interesting to contrast his descriptions of the Persians here, with the same in Cyropaedia. (The whole book is a bit long, but the last part has a summarized "customs of noble Persians back in the day - customs of decadent Persians right now" section. If there's anything besides the Ten Thousand that would inspire Alexander...) ... The start is really goddamned dull. I tried to introduce the book to my dad (cue poster appearing and making the same joke for the thousandth time) who is really into military fiction, and he couldn't get past the "today we marched 5 no pasarans, and consumed 3 resource units" sections.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 09:03 |
Just want to say that I'm really happy with this thread so far, thanks everyone. How reliable a narrator do we think Xenophon is? On the one hand, he seems to pretty clearly be talking himself up at every opportunity (and also talking up how loyal he is to Sparta, which is interesting for an Athenian). On the other, though, there were roughly ten thousand other witnesses to all this; if he had lied about anything, someone would probably have called him out on it, right? Edit: yeah for purposes of reading for fun skipping everything before the first battle is probably legit.
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 16:16 |
|
coyo7e posted:\I've3 had this book on audio for ages but fall asleep every time i try to get into it. I think I may need to view the text to force my eyes and consciousness to stay open. For me, the ToposText version I linked above really helped me stay interested - I like maps and it was nice to be able to kind of trace the path of the expedition and see where all of these places were, geographically. One of the things that makes this book hard to approach, for me, is that Xenophon is really big in describing things in terms of units of measure, but they're all from 2500 years ago and left in the translation rather than converted to modern units. (From a translation point of view, it's an interesting question whether or not it would be faithful to the text to convert parasanges to miles, stadions to yards, etc. or whether that would be intruding.) I looked the common ones I was finding up and made a little chart for myself so I can get a quick reminder that a parasange is ~3.5 miles, but it's a totally reasonable objection that only classics nerds would do that.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 16:43 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Edit: yeah for purposes of reading for fun skipping everything before the first battle is probably legit. Something I thought was curious about that: the non-Greeks parade past Cyrus, but he drives past the Greeks in their stationary blocks (until he unleashes them to cause havoc.) Why? Do the barbarians look more impressive in motion? Are they less capable of holding nice ranks in a still formation? Is singling out the Greeks a good idea as a commander (or does Xenophon think it is)? While it's theoretically a good thing for the Greeks to be able to scatter an army, should he not be more concerned that it's his?
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 16:53 |
The impression I always had from that passage was that the Greeks were wearing polished metal armor and moving in drilled, unified formation, and the Persians just had no conception of that, and reacted like we would to an alien invasion or something. Aren't almost all the barbarians wearing cloth or wicker armor?
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 17:04 |
|
I just read the early bit with Orontas, Cyrus' treacherous general (Dakyns's translation on Gutenberg):quote:After they had conducted him to the tent of Artapates, the trustiest of Cyrus's wand-bearers, none set eyes upon him ever again, alive or dead. No one, of his own knowledge, could declare the manner of his death; though some conjectured one thing and some another. No tomb to mark his resting-place, either then or since, was ever seen. Seems really strikingly characteristic of what we see of Cyrus. He tries to project a perfect image of himself, but this story starts with his deceptions. Xenophon seems to take notice of this secrecy, like it's one of those cracks in Cyrus's image.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 17:19 |
|
Tao Jones posted:
But seriously though "pay your goddamned mercenaries you absolute assholes" and "reward people appropriately" are the most fundamental takeaways of Xeno's leadership theory. Xander77 fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Feb 13, 2016 |
# ? Feb 11, 2016 19:07 |
|
Xander77 posted:But seriously though "pay your goddamned mercenaries your absolute assholes" and "reward people appropriately" are the most fundamental takeaways of Xeno's leadership theory. That's not surprising, coming from a mercenary captain. But, as the Sack of Antwerp attests, people still failed to pay their mercenaries for at least 2000 years after Xenophon.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 20:12 |
golden bubble posted:That's not surprising, coming from a mercenary captain. But, as the Sack of Antwerp attests, people still failed to pay their mercenaries for at least 2000 years after Xenophon. Thus demonstrating, via negative example, the value of a classical education.
|
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 21:05 |
|
What makes a sacrifice unfavorable anyway? I think it's funny ever step of the way they are making sacrifices to see what direction to take. They make them in public, in private, and sometimes won't move even when they are starving because of the sacrifices. The have ships brining in animals to sacrifice as part of the war supplies. And to top it off, the guy who interprets the sacrifices rats out Xenophon's questions that he sacrifices over. It's such a large part of the book.
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 21:49 |
|
Rusty posted:What makes a sacrifice unfavorable anyway? I think it's funny ever step of the way they are making sacrifices to see what direction to take. They make them in public, in private, and sometimes won't move even when they are starving because of the sacrifices. The have ships brining in animals to sacrifice as part of the war supplies. And to top it off, the guy who interprets the sacrifices rats out Xenophon's questions that he sacrifices over. It's such a large part of the book. Creatures of Light and Darkness posted:"Those are my innards! I will not have them misread by a poseur!"
|
# ? Feb 11, 2016 22:25 |
|
Xander77 posted:(cue poster appearing and making the same joke for the thousandth time) I am - no joke - sometimes getting PMs from goons telling me when there's a setup for a "my dad" joke somewhere on the forums and someone once even complained how I failed to use a "perfect setup". I intentionally made only the lamest possible jokes of the sort in the past year in an effort to deter this, and thankfully it's (mostly) working. Xander77 posted:But seriously though "pay your goddamned mercenaries your absolute assholes" and "reward people appropriately" are the most fundamental takeaways of Xeno's leadership theory. I wonder how the 30 years war practice of "lol, actually paying mercenaries" would compare to this.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2016 01:38 |
Shout-out for the Zelazny referenceRusty posted:What makes a sacrifice unfavorable anyway? I think it's funny ever step of the way they are making sacrifices to see what direction to take. They make them in public, in private, and sometimes won't move even when they are starving because of the sacrifices. The have ships brining in animals to sacrifice as part of the war supplies. And to top it off, the guy who interprets the sacrifices rats out Xenophon's questions that he sacrifices over. It's such a large part of the book. I started digging around online and it's surprisingly difficult to find information on ancient Greek divination by entrails. I think the presumption is you slaughter the animal and if it's shot through with cancer that's a big "no." I did find this incredibly silly site attempting to apply etruscan Haruspexy (which we apparently have records of through Cicero) to the ritual sacrifice of . . . an egg. http://corvallistoday.com/Europe/italy_rome/etruscan.htm
|
|
# ? Feb 12, 2016 02:35 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Shout-out for the Zelazny reference Letters to the Kings of Mari contains Babylonian training guides for quick and easy liver divination.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2016 03:41 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Just want to say that I'm really happy with this thread so far, thanks everyone. There's a lot of "and everyone stood up and clapped" parts, but I think the general story is true. He probably expanded on his speeches after the march was over because there's no way he delivered sermons on valor, justice, and generosity that suddenly convinced everyone of his point of view, but he seems to take a great care to get distances, locations, and names right.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2016 03:57 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Shout-out for the Zelazny reference The speeches were so good. They're ready to stone him to death because some idiot won't pay them, and he just let's them have it. He does get that result from everyone though, and everyone always has to admit he's right, there is just no denying it. Oh you're going to stone me? Aren't you the guy I trusted to carry a injured soldier and you tried to bury him alive? And by the way, didn't I come back here when I could have just gone home, not for pay, but just for your sake? And so on. It's pretty satisfying. Thanks for the recommendation, it was a fun read.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2016 05:22 |
|
Murgos posted:If you have hoopla through your local library they have "The Persian Expedition" by Xenophon published by Blackstone Audio and read by Pat Bottino. I'm going to revisit this comment and say avoid this version. The narrator is about as wooden a reader as I have ever come across with little or no effort at saying the greek words consistently much less correctly. I can't make it more than a few minutes at a time before my attention is focused entirely on the [poor] quality of the narration rather than the content.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2016 13:33 |
|
Ok, I got my library's copy of this book and will be participating!
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 17:22 |
|
I'm in book 2 and it's getting way better but so far my favorite part is from book 1 with the ostriches.
|
# ? Feb 13, 2016 23:08 |
|
|
# ? Oct 7, 2024 23:44 |
|
I started reading this last night. A couple random thoughts from someone who doesn't read much anymore(sadly, trying to fix that). Also even when I read more the only ancient Greek things I read were the Iliad and the Odyssey. 1) Cyrus is kind of a manipulative dude, basically slowly pulling the mercenaries into this battle. I kind of half wonder if they would have gotten even a fraction of what he promised had he actually won. 2) Reading the army descriptions before the big battle, it was funny/startling to hear that the Great King's army was 1.2 million. Wikipedia says 40,000 at Cunaxa so I guess that's Xenophon basically saying "They had a shitton of guys." Would his readers actually have believed that number, or would they have understood as "Their army was really really big"? 3) There was a Greek admiral named Pythagoras. I wasn't expecting it to be the Pythagoras I'd heard of and, unsurprisingly, it wasn't.
|
# ? Feb 14, 2016 07:54 |