This text is part of:
ἕκαστοι, ‘each set, nation’; on this force of the plural cp. c. 1 l. 7.
οὐκ ἔχω εἰπεῖν τὸ ἀτρεκές: a candid, if damning admission, for only by the addition of the items could any trustworthy total have been consummated. The added justification: οὐ γὰρ λέγεται πρὸς οὐδαμῶν ἀνθρώπων is still more damning, for it betrays the fact that for his figures, and inferentially for his method of arriving at (a) the totals of the forces, (b) the descriptions of the several contingents, or items, Hdt. has not had the official army-lists of Xerxes to fall back upon, or any similar documents, but has compiled the army-list, and perhaps the navylist to boot, on a priori principles, or data: or taken them over at second hand.
οὐδαμῶν: οὐδαμός (=οὐδὲ ἀμός ‘not even one’<*> L. & S.), a stronger form than οὐδείς, frequent in Hdt. but only in the plural (οὐδαμῆ̣ adverbial), and twice at least (4. 114, 6. 103) in the feminine. τοῦ στρατοῦ τοῦ πεζοῦ here plainly excludes the cavalry, in Hdt.'s conception, the numbers of which are given subsequently. as a separate figure. Cp. contr. c. 26.
ἐξηρίθμησαν δὲ τόνδε τὸν τρόπον: ‘The enumeration was aceomplished by the following method.’ Ten thousand human beings were squeezed into one spot as tightly as possible: a line was then drawn round them, and they were allowed to disperse: a wall, some 3-4 ft. high was then built all round upon the line: the enclosure, or sheep-fold, thus construeted, was then filled and emptied, by snccessive batehes of fighting-men, one hundred and seventy times: this was the means by whieh it was ascertained that the Infantry in the army amounted to 1,700,000 (or 10,000 x 170). This story is incredible, and even absurd, for the following reasons:— (i.) The method of numbering as deseribed wonld have taken a very long time; weeks or months would have elapsed before 1,700,000 men could have been marched up, passed through the enclosnre, and marched away again. Hdt. deals with myriads of men as if they were handfuls, and ignores conditions of time and spaee. (ii.) The numbers of the eavalry (80,000) are afterwards given c. 87. How were these nnmbers aseertained, for they are not included by Hdt. in the 170 myriads? (iii.) The numbers of the Persian forces are already known, and have been stated twice. both for infantry and cavalry, ec. 40, 54 f.: yet the infantry is here included in the 170 myriads. and snbjeeted to the proeess of enumeration described! (iv.) The process deseribed is not merely on the faee of it childish but was donbtless superfluous: the numbers of each eontingent were no donbt nominally and approximately known to the captains, divisional offieers, and commanders: reports furnished by them wonld have supplied data for a computation. (v.) Elsewhere Hdt. gives the sum total of large Persian armies, notably 4. 87 (forces of Dareios in the Skythie campaign), without any explanation of how the figures had been ascertained in the first instance. (vi.) The eredibility of Hdt.'s account here is not enhaneed by the faet that the worthless Curtius (3. 2. 2) makes ‘Dareus’ (Codomannus) employ a similar device for aseertaining the number of his host. Whatever the exaggerations of the Sach-kritik, or ‘real’ criticism, there are cases where its verdict is final, and this is one of them; the historian or critic who maintains the literal eredibility of this Herodotean absurdity is past praying for. Nor will any reduction of the figures save the method of numbering as deseribed; the smaller the sum the less need for sueh clumsy methods: moreover the 170 must be regarded as the most certain item in the story. An origin and a rationale the story must, of course, have had, however diffieult to discover. The figures 100, 1000, 10,000 were doubtless real units of organization in the land forees of the great king: if Doriskos was the rendezvous of a great part of the forees, and the first place where the whole army and navy were coneentrated, it is probable enough that there was some need for organization or reorganization here: for one thing, the three army corps, the three marehing columns were doubtless here formed: for another, it is possible that at Doriskos Persian eommanders (ἄρχοντες） were introduced throughout the whole array, and the grouping of various contingents under these ἄρχ<*>τες carried into effeet. See further, <*>pendix II. § 5. One important inference remains to be drawn from this passage, and the army-list which follows, as compared with the data for the army of Dareios as described in 4. 87, in relation to the problem of composition. Considering the materials which Hdt. had at his disposal for a description of the Host of Dareios, the stelai, the picture of Mandrokles, and so on, is it likely that he would have forgone the opportunity there presented for a pictorial description of the Persian forees, unless either this whole passage had been, so to speak, already in type, or unless he had a very clear plan and intention to do for Xerxes what he wonld not do for Dareios? The latter alternative is improbable. The occnrrence of this passage in Bk. 7 mnst be reckoned to the proofs, none of which by itself is conclnsive but the cumnlative effect of which is very heavy, of the earlier composition of this section of Hdt.'s work. Cp. Introdnction, § 8.
συννάξαντες: cp. κατανάσσειν c. 36 supra: but the reading is donbtful: cp. App. Crit. ταύτην, sc. τὴν μυριάδα.
περιέγραψαν ἔξωθεν κύκλον: περιγράψαντες δέ: as easily as Perdikkas the circle of the sun 8. 137 infra: περιγράφει τῇ μαχαίρῃ ἐς τὸ ἔδαφος τοῦ οἴκου τὸν ἥλιον, περιγράψας δέ κτλ.
αἱμασιήν, a low wall of loose stones, such as the garden-walls in Ionia, the hannt of the lizard 2. 69, the low wall ronnd the precinct of Demeter at Paros 6. 134 (cp. 2. 138): in Thnc. 4. 43. 3 a low wall of loose stones. Abicht is not far wrong in saying αἱμασἱη is in all places to be nnderstood of a stone-enclosnre, as Hdt. 1. 180 αἱμασίη πλίνθων ὀπτέων implies as mnch by the express mention of the bricks in that case.
κατὰ ἔθνεα, the national divisions remained visible in the reorganization κατὰ τέλεα. ARMY-LIST 61-80 (88). “The description of Hdt. does not show any great correspondenee with the Persepolitan representations,” Rawlinson iv. 55 n. The spears are not short bnt long; the bows are not long but short; coats (sic） of scale armonr are nowhere fonnd; there is no shield corresponding to the γέρρον. Bnt the ‘coat’ is a cnirass, worn nnder the tunic, and therefore invisible; the gerron must be anthentic, and if the monuments do not show it, so mnch the worse for them; the figures (at Snsa, at Persepolis) parade the corps d'élite, not the common infantry, and ‘long,’ ‘short,’ are in any case relative and indeterminate. Cp. Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Persia, E.T. 420-5.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.