- This topic has 3 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
Assigned topic is The Battle of Marathon.Here's what I am thinking of doing:Basically I want to tell the story of the battle in chronological order using Herodutus as a guide, but use other primary and/or secondary sources to point out Herodotus's inaccuracies in order to get to the 'true' story.Is that really a history paper by definition or is this more comparative literature? Could this work if it is written well?
I can see using Herodotus as your primary source while pointing out where other accounts of the battle differ from his. What is your thesis, that Herodotus presents the most accurate account of the battle. I would probably go with a consensus view of the available accounts. There really aren't that many accounts of the battle are there? I know that for many medieval battles there are at most 4-5 accounts of the battle and maybe one eyewitness account if you are lucky.
There's enough to make a paper I think, I just don't want it to end up being the same old same old. Not sure what my thesis or focus is yet. There's a question of the kill ratio Herodotus used as well as his account of someone who I can't remember that H. has alive but actually (or maybe) died according to someone else.
Assigned topic is The Battle of Marathon.Here's what I am thinking of doing:Basically I want to tell the story of the battle in chronological order using Herodutus as a guide, but use other primary and/or secondary sources to point out Herodotus's inaccuracies in order to get to the 'true' story.Is that really a history paper by definition or is this more comparative literature? Could this work if it is written well?
Honestly, such a paper sounds like it might be overly vague if you were just to point out inaccuracies, without having a larger question you're trying to answer. A suggestion might be to attempt to answer the question of what Herodotus was trying to prove/show with his account. What was his agenda by doing so? What were his social/political/religious/misc. motivations in doing so? You can attempt to answer those questions by pointing out things he ommitted or made a point of stressing. Such a paper would get my interest, if no one else's...
Check out Victor David Hanson's Western Way of War for an excellent discussion of casualties in Hoplite warfare. He is probably the most authoritative current historian on Ancient Greek combat.
Do you have that book handy? Does he mention anything about the ratio of Persians killed to Athenians? H. has it at 6400:192, a 9:1 or greater ratio I believe, when in actuality (although I need better proof) it was more like 3-5:1.
Ther is no specific mention of casualty figures for marathon in the book. One of the few mentions of the battle in the book deals how the Greeks that came late to the battle marched on to witness the Battlefield.p. 202. There is a reference to casualties in greek battle generally running to 5% of the Victors and 14% of the Defeated. I will send you the Page as a PDF by email. The citation for the book is
Hanson, Victor Davis. The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press, 1989
Not sure if the citation is 100% correct, I just typed it in format from memory. If you need more details, let me know.
thanks. If you want, send it to kenadamsri@cox.net unless you are able to attach a file to a PM here.The latecomers were probably Spartans, they were busy with some religious ceremony at the time their assistance was requested. Also, i think the only other source(s) I know of for accurate casualty figures was Plutarch or perhaps some other primary source.
I just sent the email to you from work. The copy is as a .pdf file. If I can help you with anything else let me know. I don?t know how helpful what I am sending will be. I would still recommend Hanson's book to anyone interested in Greek warfare.
Got it. I'll have to wait until I get home to print it.Marathon fact (I'm amazed at how accepted this incorrect fact is): Pheidippides DID NOT run from Marathon to Athens. He allegedly ran from Athens to Sparta, a distance of 150 miles. And H. makes no mention of this.My own opinion, I think it is an invention made up by latter writers.
Got it. I'll have to wait until I get home to print it.Marathon fact (I'm amazed at how accepted this incorrect fact is): Pheidippides DID NOT run from Marathon to Athens. He allegedly ran from Athens to Sparta, a distance of 150 miles. And H. makes no mention of this.My own opinion, I think it is an invention made up by latter writers.
You are probably right, but didn't they say at the Athens Olympics a few years ago that the Marathon route they used was as close as possible to the real route? I distinctly remember that because of the blather from idiot reporters about the funerary mound on the battlefield and their limpid description of the battle.
Yes, they did and still do. But they were wrong. This is how I'm checking the validity of some of my lesser known sources. If there's mention of a run from Marathon to Athens, and if it's regarded as an actual historical fact, I discard the source.
the funerary mound on the battlefield
Surprised they would even mention that. Did they mention both of them?
