Reginald Walter Macan, Herodotus, The Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books with Introduction and Commentary

---

---

τὰ μέγιστα ὠνόμασται, that is, the five divisions named above, Persians, Medes, Baktrians, Indians, Sakans, were not exclusively composed of men drawn respectively from the nations named, but each division, while containing men of various nations, has been named from the greatest and most conspicuous nationality comprised in it.

---

Φρυγῶν τε καὶ Μυσῶν: Phrygians and Mysians may be taken to represent the Asianic levies. On the Phrygians cp. 7. 73; on the Mysians cp. 7. 74. Stein5 recognizes that the order of the text in R (B) is sachrichtig; cp. App. Crit.

---

Θρηίκων τεκαὶ Παιόνων. Thracians and Paionians may be taken to represent European levies drawn from the countries east of the Axios. On the Thracians cp. 7. 110; Paionians, 7. 113, 124; and on both 7. 185. (Were these mainly in the division of Artabazos?)

---

Αἰθιόπων τε καὶ Αἰγυπτίων: the Ethiopians and Egyptians represent the Libyan levies as a whole. Ethiopians have been described in the army-list of Xerxes 7. 69. Egyptians are, however, a new feature in the land-forces; their levy and armature have been described, 7. 89, in the navy-list. Their presence at Plataia calls for explanation, which Hdt. proceeds to offer, not without involving himself in some remarkable discrepancies.

οἵ τε ... μάχιμοι. This note on the Ἑρμοτύβιες and the Καλασίριες is a gloss, or a later insertion by the author's hand, for (i.) it can only refer to the Egyptians, yet here it must also be referred to the Ethiopians! (ii.) The grammar of the whole passage is faultless without it, the genitives Αἰθ. τε καὶ Αἰγ. being strictly co-ordinate with τῶν ἄλλων etc. and following δρες. (iii.) As a note on Αἰγυπτίων the sentence would have come in much better in 7. 89. (iv.) The absence of a reference to 2. 164 ff. is remarkable. This note appears to be a reminiscence of that disquisition on the Egyptian eastes (γένεα) in general, and the warrior caste, or eastes, in particular Whether gloss, or addition by the author's hand, this observation points to the later composition of the Egyptian Logoi, and the prior composition of the story of the Persian war, by our author; but the four reasons above given marks the sentence rather as a gloss than as an author's addition. Cp. Introduction, §§ 7-9.

---

μαχαιροφόροι: cp. 7. 89, where their arms are much more fully described, the description ending μαχαίρας δὲ μεγάλας εἶχον.

---

τούτους δὲ ἔτι ἐν Φαλήρῳ ἐὼν κτλ. The Egyptian fleet of 200 ships might have mustered 6000 Epibatai (cp. 7. 184) while intact; but then, were they ‘Egyptians’? Cp. 7. 96. The statement that Mardonios, while still in Phaleron, debarked these Epibatai for his own purpose deserves attention. What becomes of the hasty flight of the fleet from Salamis (8. 107)? What becomes of the διάκρισις of the forces in Thessaly (8. 113)? It might be argued from the presence of Egyptians in the forces of Mardonios that the fleet, or some porition of it, the Egyptian squadron at least, aecompamed the king on his retirement. The assertion that Mardonios selected the Egyptian Epibatar at Phaleron is obviously the translation into narrative of the reason, which immediately follows (οὐ γὰρ ἐτάχθησαν κτλ.), in the light of the supposed departure of the fleet straight from Salamis, 8. 107. It is true that, according to l.c., Xerxes before the departure of the fleet καλἐσας Μαρδόνιον ἐκέλευσέ μιν τῆς στρατιῆς διαλέγειν τοὺς βούλεται, and to fulfil his engagement. But nothing is there said of taking any men from the fleet, and Mardonios himself, only a few hours before, has been inveighing against the cowardice of the Egyptians, etc. (8. 100), in a way hardly consistent with his including them in his select force!

The fair inference, however, is not that there were Egyptians all along in the land-forces, but that Hdt. in various contexts preserves various stories and statements from various sources, often contradictory or more or less contrary to each other, without staying to criticize, to harmonize, to reduce all to selfconsistency.

---

τριήκοντα μυριάδες: 300,000 is the figure which Hdt. consistently maintams for the fighting men of Mardonios. This figure, however, in 8. 113 appears to include the ἱππεῖς. Here the ἱππεῖς appear not to be included. It also includes the 60,000 (infantry and cavalry) of the division of Artabazos, 8. 126. This division is given as only 40,000 below (c. 66), and though the difference may be accounted for by the supposed loss of 20,000 before Poteidaia, and in Thrace (cp. 8. 126-129), yet Hdt. fails to subtract these two myriads from the estimate of Mardonios' forces in this place.

The army of Mardonios consists of five divisions, above described, together with a sixth of ‘Greek allies,’ which Hdt. computes at 50,000 men (making 350,000 in all). Probably the division of Artabazos may be considered here to be absent, and the five divisions of barbarians may be taken as each consisting ex hypothesi of 50,000, or 250,000 in all; that is, each division consists of five myriads (nominal), each under a myriarch (and each myriad again is snbdivided into 10 chiliads, nominal, each led by a chiliarch). The division perhaps consists of 4 myriads of foot, and 1 myriad of cavalry. If Artabazos had really 60,000 men in his division, he may have had an extra myriad, perhaps cavalry, for the king's escort; or the figure may have been reached by reckoning his division as 50,000 πεζοί, and adding a myriad ἱππεῖς—in fact, eounting the myriad of cavalry twice over; the 40,000 men in c. 66 infra represents his normal number of πεζοί.

But this army of Mardonios, in six divisions of 50,000 each, viz. 40,000 πεζοί + 10,000 ἱππεῖς, is none other than the original army of Xerxes, the organization of which has been quite clearly, not quite consciously, indicated in Bk. 7, where the numbers have been vastly exaggerated.

Either, then, Mardonios retained the whole army τὸν ἅμα Ξέρξῃ ἀπικόμενον, and was in command of a (nominal) 300,000, a very improbable alternative; or he did indeed only command a selection, or a section, of the grand army, perhaps the very division, 50,000 strong, of which he had been all al<*>g in command, while Artabazos commanded a second division of equal strength, the army of 479 B.C. numbering in all 100,000—exclusive of the European allies; or possibly Mardonios commanded two divisions, which with the division under Artabazos might raise the total Asiatic forces in Europe to 150,000, or thereabouts. See further, Appendices II. § 5, and VIII § 2.

ὡς καὶ πρότερον δεδήλωται: the reference is clearly to Bk. 8, cc. 100, 113, but the verb is much too strong; εἴρηται (as elsewhere) would meet the case: a δήλωσις should have included the items! The words may be a gloss, especially without μοι. Cp. App. Crit.

---

τῶν Μαρδονίου συμμάχων: among the ‘allies’ of Mardoinos must be included the Makedonians, whom Hdt. perhaps would not deny as ‘Hellenes,’ as well as the Boiotians, Lokrians, Malians, Phokians, Thessalians, and dwellers in the parts about Thessaly; cp. c. 31 supra. If these peoples were allies of ‘Mardonios’ especially, that would be a source of strength to him against Artabazos. But the phrase, perhaps, merely substitutes Mardonios, as commander-in-chief, for the king; or the king's subjects might be ‘allies’ of Mardonios; cp. 8. 24.

---

οἶδε μὲν οὐδεὶς ἀριθμόν: this would indeed be a rash statement unless Hdt. had literary and documentary evidence to go on. He evidently believes himself to be in control of relatively com plete sources on the war; none of his authorities supplied an exaet figure for the number of the Greek allies of Mardonios, and he is therefore left to conjecture on his own account. Some of his authorities may also have indulged expressly in conjectures, but he prefers his own.

οὐ γὰρ ὦν ἠριθμήθησαν: this statement, given as the reason, is probably itself an inference from the fact, that there was no positive tradition on the subject. οὐ γὰρ ὦν cp. c. 31 supra. Hdt.'s own conjecture of 50,000 is perhaps relative to the figure already given, at least implicitly, for eaeh of the other five divisions of the army of Mardonios. Hdt. makes no attempt to distribute the total among the items. The chiliad of Phokians is the only detailed figure given. It is not likely that the Boiotians, Lokrians, Malians, Thessalians, and dwellers in the parts about Thessaly, with the Makedonians, put 49,000 men into the field of Plataia. Hdt. is speaking of fighting men. He only allows at most 11,600 Hoplites in the Greek left wing, opposed to this the sixth corps in the Persian line; cp. 31 supra. A ‘myriad’ for the Greek allies of Mardonios would be a fair estimate.

---

ἡ δὲ ἵππος χωρὶς ἐτέτακτο: the pluperfect can hardly be pressed into meaning that the cavalry had previously been drawn up and assigned a different position; it is only = ἦσαν χωρὶς τεταγμένοι (οἱ ἱππεῖς). Cavalry certainly formed part of the battle-array. The words may, however, fairly be taken to mean that the cavalry had a distinet position, the infantry being in continuous formation. But all the cavalry was not in one place. Most probably the Greek cavalry was on the extreme right, and the Persian cavalry on the extreme left of the position. This conjecture is borne out by the subsequent narrative, notably the exploit of the Persian cavalry in c. 39, and that of the Hellenic c. 69 infra. ἡ δὲ ἵππος χωρίς curiously anticipates a phrase which became current in connexion with the legend of Marathon (cp. Hdt. IV.-VI. ii. 231).

It is not quite clear in this passage whether Hdt. means to exclude the cavalry from the numerical computations just given. Prima facie he excludes it only from the παράταξις. Moreover, cavalry must surely be included in his computation of the 50,000 allies. Again, in 8, 113 the Persian cavalry appears to be expressly included in the 300,000. All which considered, it may be concluded that the cavalry is not here to be reckoned separately, diffieult as it remains on that plan to account for the figures 60,000 assigned to the corps d'armée under Artabazos 8. 126 (and to Tigranes c. 69 infra, or rather Masistes, vide notes in l.).