Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Herodotus - The Histories
>
Herodotus, Book Three
III. While Cambyses is on campaign in Egypt, the Magi in Persia conspire to take control. Cambyses misinterprets a dream and has his brother Smerdis killed, which presents an opportunity for one of the Magi, who is also named Smerdis and who looks just like Cambyses's brother, to take his place. Cambyses recovers his sanity as he is dying (from an accidental wound he received in exactly the same place he stabbed Apis,) realizes his mistake, and begs the Persians not to allow the Magi to rule. A number of Persians, including Darius, decide to find out if Cambyses was speaking the truth about killing his brother. (Why would they doubt? Or do Persians sometimes lie?) Eventually the false Smerdis is exposed. The conspirators debate about the best way to take him down. Darius argues against deliberation. His plan is simple: lie to the palace guards, go in, and kill Smerdis. "We strive for the same goal whether we lie or tell the truth." And so they proceed. The conspirators then engage in a very interesting discussion about the best form of government, and after Darius succeeds in persuading them that monarchy is the best, Darius becomes king. (With some help from a clever groom.) IV. The satrapies of Darius are described in terms of the tribute each pays , including the furthest reaches of India, where cannibalism is the norm and giant ants farm gold from the ground. Oroites, governor of Sardis, is goaded by another official into becoming the instrument of Polycrates's destruction, thereby ending his winning streak. Darius punishes Oroites in a curious manner.
The Greek physician Demodoces proves himself useful, but is not allowed to return to Greece. Demodoces convinces Atossa, one of Darius's wives, to persuade Darius to expand his empire, first by attacking Greece. Darius agrees, sending Demodoces as a guide on a spy mission. Herodotus says these were the first Persians to come from Asia to Hellas.
Darius conquers Samos, and he makes Syloson its ruler in order to show his gratitude for Syloson's gift of a cloak when Darius was just one of Cambyses's bodyguards. After Polycrates died, Maiandrios became tyrant out of necessity. Maiandrios was willing to give up Samos under truce to the Persians, but his crazy brother Charilaos goads him into letting his mercenaries attack the Persians. Samos is utterly destroyed by the Persians and Maiandrios escapes to Sparta, but the Spartans refuse his gifts out of fear of corruption and send him packing. Syloson becomes ruler of a deserted Samos.
While the Persians were dealing with Samos, Babylon revolts. The Persians are unable to retake it until Zopyros, the son of one of the slayers of the Magi, comes up with a trick that involves him mutilating himself and telling the Babylonians a lie about how Darius was responsible for his injuries. The Babylonians take him in, like a Trojan horse, and Zopyros opens the gate.
I thought it was quite an interesting tidbit that was passed on to H r/t the comparative hardness or weakness of ones skull. The thought that Egyptians had hard skulls because they shaved their heads from childhood on & that the sun exposure thickened the bone. Hmm....Vit D from the sun does help the calcification process of our bones, did they really hit on some truth? However, the next comment about seeing fewer bald-headed Egyptians than other races. How do they know that , if the Egyptian men all shaved their heads??!I also was moved by Lycophron's sister's plea to have him return Corinth. I especially liked "heal not evil with evil."
I noticed a few things in book III;-first of all: where in book I it is explained that it was forbidden for the Persians to tell lies, Darius doesn't seem to be bothered at all to do so in order to kill Smerdis. It seems to be just one of many instances where Persians seem to lie
-secondly: when the false Smerdis takes the throne and his lies come out, everyone is outraged. But when Darius uses a trick to ascertain the throne, after he convinced the others that monarchy is the best way of government, nobody objects.
The whole story makes me think about Darius motives. It becomes clear that he suspected the false Smerdis even before the others found out about him and was going to act upon it. Even though Herodotus tells a nice story, it did make me wonder wether Darius was who Herodotus makes him to be. It could also be that Darius conspirited to take the throne and afterwards rewrote the whole story.
Marieke wrote: "I noticed a few things in book III;-first of all: where in book I it is explained that it was forbidden for the Persians to tell lies, Darius doesn't seem to be bothered at all to do so in order ..."
That jumped out at me as well. There are numerous instances in this chapter of Persian lying and dishonesty, and I think it culminates in Darius's defense of lying when the conspirators are planning to kill the false Smerdis:
For where a lie must be told, let it it be told. We strive for the same goal whether we lie or tell the truth. Some people lie hoping to gain by convincing their listeners to believe them; others tell the truth hoping that greater trust will thereby be placed in them. Our goal is the same, though the methods we practice to reach it may differ. If there were nothing to gain, a truthful man would be just as likely to lie as a liar would be to tell the truth. 3.72
Telling the truth on principle is no longer the law. It has been replaced by something like a "noble lie." (Had Plato read Herodotus?)
So what instigated this change? In book one where Herodotus explains Persian customs (including the prohibition against lying) he says "There is no nation which so readily adopts foreign customs as the Persians." (1.135) Have the Persians changed because of the exposure or influence of the people they have conquered?
Yes, quite an interesting bit of trickery to gain the throne. But even the group, excluding Otanes, thought deciding on who should be king by the neighing of a horse seems pretty lcomical, lame at best!I loved Otanes argument for government by the people!
Thomas wrote: IV. The satrapies of Darius are described in terms of the tribute each pays , including the furthest reaches of India, where cannibalism is the norm and giant ants farm gold from the ground. Giant gold-digging ants!! Weren't those in Faust? (Or did I see it on Ancient Aliens? :)
From wikipedia: The French ethnologist Michel Peissel claimed that the story of 'gold-digging ants' reported by the Greek historian Herodotus (5th century BC), was founded on the golden Himalayan marmot of the Deosai plateau and the habit of local tribes such as the Minaro to collect the gold dust excavated from their burrows.
And an article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/wor...
Chris wrote: I thought deciding on who should be king by the neighing of a horse seems pretty comical, lame at best!Sometimes, Herodotus makes me uncomfortable.
(view spoiler)
Ashley wrote: "And an article from the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/25/wor...
"
Marmots? Wow. Now I have another book to read. The Ants' Gold It's shocking to learn that this has some validity. It's making it more difficult to dismiss Herodotus's more bizarre claims out of hand (though I think some of them still deserve it.) Thanks for posting that.
Ashley wrote: "Would this have shocked Herodotus' audience? Is he including this kind of info for entertainment value?"Without revealing the spoiler material, I think it's safe to say that ancient Greek society had a very different approach to sexuality than most moderns do. Satyr plays were explicit to a grotesque degree, the cult of Dionysus celebrated sexuality in a very public way, statues that today would be considered obscene were sacred objects (herms), etc. I think H. is trying to be objective about sexual customs, just as he is about ritual violence. Now whether his audience believed everything he said is another matter...
Ashley wrote: "Giant gold-digging ants!! Weren't those in Faust? (Or did I see it on Ancient Aliens? :) "Yes, a gold-digging ants choir is singing in the Classical Walpurgis Night (Faust II,2). In the company of griffins and one-eyed Arimaspians (who we will meet again in the next book):
You speak of gold! In great heaps did we hoard it,
In rocky caverns secretly we stored it;
The Arimaspians have nosed it out,
They bore it off so far they laugh and shout.
So the hunt is on. It seems that Goethe uses these fantastic elements from Herodotus to stress the distance between us and the ancients. There is more to antiquity than the Olympian and Socratic - it is hardly a coincidence that there are three invaders here of the classical world: Faust (in search of 'that what cannot be'), Homunculus (humanity) and Mephistopheles (tending the baser instincts).
The stories in this chapter are quite enjoyable, but the most interesting authorial comment I've come across so far is at 3:38.Everything goes to make me certain that Cambyses was completely mad; otherwise he would not have gone in for mocking religion and tradition. If one were to order all mankind to choose the best set of rules in the world, each group would, after due consideration, choose its own customs; each group regards its own as being by far the best. So it is unlikely that anyone except a madman would laugh at such things....
There are several possible ways to read this whole passage. One is that Cambyses shouldn't have thought he could get away with mocking the Egyptians' religious customs without raising their ire. But I see another, more interesting construal. Herodotus is saying that our cultural and religious traditions are socially constructed, but this isn't a negative point (as it usually is in today's political rhetoric). Quite the reverse. Traditions are important for the very fact that the cultures in which they arise invest them with profound meaning. Thus Cambyses's irreverence toward Egyptian religion is worth mentioning along with his murderous activities; it reveals an insanity that removes him from human sensitivity to custom, which is truly king.
Rosaria Munson has written how Cambyses serves Herodotus as a "negative paradigm for historical and ethical action," a kind of foil for Herodotus's own respectful ethnographic observation. "To Cambyses... nothing is 'sacred,' while Herodotus' brand of relativism teaches that everything is."
Rex wrote: "Everything goes to make me certain that Cambyses was completely mad; otherwise he would not have gone in for mocking religion and tradition. If one were to order all mankind to choose the best set of rules in the world, each group would, after due consideration, choose its own customs; each group regards its own as being by far the best. So it is unlikely that anyone except a madman would laugh at such things...." 3.38
This passage is especially interesting because it begins with the censure of Cambyses for mocking and desecrating Egyptian customs, but it ends with Darius demonstrating that customs are relative, and perhaps even arbitrary. According to Herodotus, the Persians are known for their ability to change and adopt new customs. What does this say about Persian identity? What does it say about Persian integrity when Darius argues for relativism and when he lies because it suits his purposes? Cambyses is considered mad because he denigrates Egyptian customs, but it seems that Darius is doing the same or worse to his own.
I loved the discussion regarding democracy, etc. We always think that democracy was created by Athenians but, off course, many societies must have considered this other kind of gouvernment before or at the same time, right? Also, because right now my country is going through a political crisis, some people are actually discussing the value of democracy, how to implement a true democracy (if actually possible) or the best democracy we can actually implement in real world, etc. So, it seems to be a point that people will discuss forever, ah ah.
Monica wrote: "I loved the discussion regarding democracy, etc. We always think that democracy was created by Athenians but, off course, many societies must have considered this other kind of gouvernment before o..."Apparently there are scholars who doubt that this kind of discussion would ever have taken place in Persia, and that it is probably Herodotus's invention. (Even though he insists the discussion took place!) I don't know enough about ancient Persia to say why this is, but it does seem a little odd that Persians would consider a form of government that was uniquely Greek at the time. Technically, the word that Otanes uses is not democracy, it is "isonomia," which means something like equality under the law -- maybe avoiding the term "demokratia" is Herodotus's attempt to make the discussion more credible.
Any thoughts on the story of Polykrates and the ring? Is it really such a bad thing to have boundless good luck? Do you think there is any relation between this story and what Solon says about happiness in Book 1?
Thomas wrote: "Monica wrote: "I loved the discussion regarding democracy, etc. We always think that democracy was created by Athenians but, off course, many societies must have considered this other kind of gouve..."A book which is both pertinent to Monica's point, and extremely authorative, has just been published - 'Democracy: A Life' by Paul Cartledge. It is published by OUP and its ISBN is 978-0199697670. The question of the origins of Democracy are explicitly addressed. Prof Cartledge also provided the Introduction and Notes for Tom Holland's translation of Herodotus which, I would venture to suggest, is the best translation for many years.
Rodney wrote: "A book which is both pertinent to Monica's point, and extremely authorative, has just been published - 'Democracy: A Life' by Paul Cartledge."Thanks for the excellent suggestion, Rodney! I checked on it online and it has definitely captured my interest. It is already included into my "to read" list which is growing exponentially since I have joined the group... Not complaining!
Thomas wrote: "Apparently there are scholars who doubt that this kind of discussion would ever have taken place in Persia, and that it is probably Herodotus's invention...."Good point, Thomas! So, I wonder why Herodotus introduced this tale here. Should it not be his interest to claim such political concepts to his own people? Although it is comfortable to go with his nice flow of words and tales, it reminds me that there is certainly other layers and messages in his writings...
Monica wrote: "Rodney wrote: "A book which is both pertinent to Monica's point, and extremely authorative, has just been published - 'Democracy: A Life' by Paul Cartledge."Thanks for the excellent suggestion, R..."
Another book that you may care to add to your "to read" list is Paul Woodruff's "First Democracy - The challenge of an ancient idea". The ISBN is 9780195177183 - another OUP publication. The two books should keep you busy for a little while.
Monica wrote: " So, I wonder why Herodotus introduced this tale here. Should it not be his interest to claim such political concepts to his own people? "I wonder if Herodotus might be playing a very subtle joke on the reader when he says this conversation "certainly did' take place. It would be perfectly natural for us not to believe it after hearing about how the Persians have turned from the truth to relying on tricks and deception.
When Prexaspes proclaims the truth to the people and then jumps to his death, it seems to signal the end of Persian truth culture altogether. When Darius becomes king through an act of deceit, it signals what the new culture and government will be like. The debate on forms of government seems out of context historically, but it's still meaningful philosophically, and maybe that's why Herodotus included it. Maybe it's the debate that the Persians should have had.
In section 15 I noticed an interesting contradiction. Cambyses, after seeing Psammenitus moved by the plight of an old friend having to beg, agreed to spare his son. But alas, his son was the first to be cut into pieces(Rawlinson translation).Then it goes on to say that "the Persian is wont to treat the sons of kings with honour".
I also enjoyed the comments on the hard and soft skulls.
After reading about Cambyses' failed attempts against the Ethiopians and Ammonians, travelling without provisions through the desert, I thought about other futile military missions, especially Napoleon's march to Moscow(and the return journey to France) and Stalingrad, and the utter disregard for the lives of the soldiers. In this particular case, the fact that they resorted to cannibalism shows their extreme situation.
The behaviour of "mad Cambyses" reminds me of the behaviour of Caligula--his unpredictably violent behaviour and his attraction to his sister being two examples of this.
The German poet Friedrich Schiller wrote an excellent ballad called Der Ring des Polykrates that sums up his story very well.
Patrice wrote: "Cambyses seems to be his polar opposite. A negative paradigm not just to Herodotus but to his "great" father. "I like the way Herodotus sums up the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius;
Because Darius imposed tribute and enforced other policies similar to this, the Persians say that Darius was a retailer, Cambyses a master of slaves, and Cyrus a father: Darius tended to conduct all his affairs like a shopkeeper, Cambyses was harsh and scornful, but Cyrus was gentle and saw to it that all good things would be theirs. 3.89
(Cambyses's cruelty is apparent, but calling Darius a shopkeeper is also insulting, considering Croesus's advice to Cyrus in Book one, that he take away the Lydians' weapons and make them raise their sons as shopkeepers in order to emasculate them.)
Chris wrote: "I thought it was quite an interesting tidbit that was passed on to H r/t the comparative hardness or weakness of ones skull. The thought that Egyptians had hard skulls because they shaved their hea..."Vitamin D, eh? That actually would make some sense. But as interesting to me as the question of why the skull differences is that Herodotus included this tidbit in what it supposed to be a history of the Persian war. His "inquiries" were certainly very far reaching. He fills the book with these little tidbits which make it a wonderfully enjoyable read.
Still gradually strolling my way through Book 3, but a few notes I made while reading:I loved the warning in 3.21 that the Ethiopians warned the Persians not to invade until they could draw the Ethiopian bow. But even more in that paragraph was the passage "It is not because he values my friendship that the Persian King sends you with gifts, nor do you speak the truth (for you have come to spy on my realm), nor is that man just; for were he just, he would not have coveted a land other than his own, nor would he try to lead into slavery men by whom he has not been injured."
Here the putative savages give an excellent lesson to the putatively civilized Persians about what is right and wrong. Indeed, much of Herodotus so far has been about people doing very little but trying to conquer and enslave other people. The idea of peaceful coexistence doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody of this era. What is it that made them so covetous of other peoples' land and bodies? But then, have we really learned anything in the past 3,000 years? Rulers all over the world are still coveting lands not their own and trying to conquer and, in many parts of the world, still effectively enslave people by whom they have not been injured.
I found it somewhat depressing to realize how far from being good many rulers in the world still are.
The failed attack on the Ethiopians in 3.25 reminded me of nothing so much as Napoleon's march on Moscow. Except that it was sun and not snow that was their real enemy, the invasions seem remarkably similar in their failure to provide adequately for their troops and the subsequent deaths of the large majority of their armies.
I have just finished 48-53, the story of Periander. It would a suitable subject for a Greek tragedy--honourable son of a dishonourable father comes to a tragic end.
The principle Darius used in 3.38 to prove the strength of custom is just as valid today as it was then. We wouldn't use cannibalism as the touchstone today, but there are plenty of other practices which are in stark contrast but which each society thinks is the best way to live. Food is a classic example. I would be horrified if somebody asked me to eat a grasshopper or a live maggot, but in some cultures these are considered delicacies. Culture.
Or, as Hilaire Belloc put it: (Written during Prohibition, which accounts for the Washington comment)
Alas! What various tastes in food
Divide the human brotherhood!
Birds in their little nests agree
With Chinamen, but not with me.
Colonials like their oysters hot,
Their omelettes heavy—I do not.
The French are fond of slugs and frogs,
The Siamese eat puppy dogs.
The nobles at the brilliant court
Of Muscovy consumed a sort
Of candles held and eaten thus,
As though they were asparagus.
The Spaniard, I have heard it said,
Eats garlic, by itself on bread:
Now just suppose a friend or dun
Dropped in to lunch at half-past one
And you were jovially to say,
“Here’s bread and garlic! Peg away!”
I doubt if you would gain your end
Or soothe the dun, or please the friend.
In Italy the traveler notes
With great disgust the flesh of goats
Appearing on the table d’hôtes;
And even this the natives spoil
By frying it in rancid oil.
In Maryland they charge like sin
For nasty stuff called terrapin;
And when they ask you out to dine
At Washington, instead of wine,
They give you water from the spring
With lumps of ice for flavoring,
That sometimes kill and always freeze
The high plenipotentiaries.
In Massachusetts all the way
From Boston down to Buzzards Bay
They feed you till you want to die
On rhubarb pie and pumpkin pie,
And horrible huckleberry pie,
And when you summon strength to cry,
“What is there else that I can try?”
They stare at you in mild surprise
And serve you other kinds of pies.
And I with these mine eyes have seen
A dreadful stuff called margarine
Consumed by men in Bethnal Green.
But I myself that here complain
Confess restriction quite in vain.
I feel my native courage fail
To see a Gascon eat a snail;
I dare not ask abroad for tea;
No cannibal can dine with me;
And all the world is torn and rent
By varying views on nutriment.
And yet upon the other hand,
De gustibus non disputand—
—Um
I enjoyed the poem by Belloc, which made me think of a scene fromThe Restaurant at the End of the Universe, which depicts the opposite of cannibalism. Instead of being a victim, the beast offers himself up to be eaten.
I have just read chapters 80, 81, 82 on the relative merits of democracy, monarchy and oligarchy. The people of Upper Canada (now Ontario) experienced the rule of an oligarchy called The Family Compact. The common people suffered while the clique thrived. In 1837 there was an unsuccessful rebellion in which some of the ringleaders were hanged, and others fled to the U.S. The people of that time would definitely agree with Darius that it was not good to live under an oligarchy.
Everyman wrote: "The idea of peaceful coexistence doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody of this era. What is it that made them so covetous of other peoples' land and bodies? ."I think this is one of the main questions of the text. Part of the answer, perhaps, is in the story of Polycrates, whose luck runs out due to his ambition to rule the seas and passion for money. Amasis tells Polycrates that he is not pleased by Polycrates's good fortune, because "god is jealous." I presume this is because in Greek mythology even the gods are subject to fate, good and bad, so it is possible for a god to be jealous of a man with exceedingly good luck. Amasis says it would be better for P. to have a little good luck, and a little bad. But he does not. In the end, Polycrates's good luck is turned bad by his own greed. (He threw the ring away and it came back to him. He goes after Oroites's gold and it kills him.)
Solon also tells Croesus that the gods are "jealous of human prosperity and disruptive of our peace". (1.32) He doesn't foresee the good luck of Polycrates though. He says such perfect luck isn't possible (perhaps because he knows it cannot end well, and Solon thinks that a good end is a requirement for happiness.)
Of course, it is impossible for one human being to receive all these blessings together, just as no one country can produce everything it needs by itself. What one has, the other lacks, and the one that has the most is the best. So too, no one man can be self-sufficient either... 1.32
Later on, the Lydian sage Sandanis asks Croesus why he would invade Persia when they have nothing worth taking and the Lydians have everything to lose. (1.71) Croesus ignores him, just as he ignores Solon, and misinterprets the oracle to mean what he wants to hear.
Looking at just these passages, it seems that the common thread is immoderate desire and lack of foresight -- both Croesus and Polycrates have more than sufficient luxuries already. They have no need for more, but they have immoderate desires. At the same time, they can only see the present moment -- they don't look to the end of their actions, or their lives, as Solon suggests they should. They both rush off like Cambyses into the Ethiopian desert, unprepared, without foresight.
Thomas wrote: "Everyman wrote: "The idea of peaceful coexistence doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody of this era. What is it that made them so covetous of other peoples' land and bodies? ."I think this is ..."
Thomas makes a valuable argument here. But I think the word 'jealous' here also has to do with the greek word 'hubris'. This concept could be translated as 'elation' or 'over-boldness' and is a main theme in greek mythologie.
In Greek mythologie 'hubris' is not always intended, but it surely is always punished by the gods. The hubris in Polycrates situation seems clear: although he has everything he still wants more and isn't satisfied. But I think his greed is no more than the instrument of punishments.
A way more important act of hubris would be the thought of buying off the gods by throwing his ring into the water. It also makes clear his focus on material things: he is told to throw away the thing he values most, and he chooses the ring. Even if the gods can be persuaded in not punishing him, he should have known that sacrificing something material wouldn't work.
Marieke wrote: "But I think the word 'jealous' here also has to do with the greek word 'hubris'. This concept could be translated as 'elation' or 'over-boldness' and is a main theme in greek mythologie. In Greek mythologie 'hubris' is not always intended, but it surely is always punished by the gods.."I agree, hubris is definitely at play here. So is "hamartia," which shows us how close these stories are to Athenian tragedy. But to be precise, the word that H. uses for "jealous" here is phthoneron, and it modifies to theiov, "the divine." What strikes me about this, aside from the gods having human emotion, is that fortune is something even higher than the gods, something beyond the control of mortals or immortals. It's almost like a natural law: what goes up, must come down.
I was reading through the booklet that comes with Vandiver's lectures and she summarizes Croesus's faults much better than I did: in a nutshell, "Croesus has violated two of the most important maxims of Greek life: Nothing in excess and know yourself. "
Patrice wrote: "Everyman wrote: "The failed attack on the Ethiopians in 3.25 reminded me of nothing so much as Napoleon's march on Moscow. Except that it was sun and not snow that was their real enemy, the invasio..."Napoleon had a failed Egyptian expedition too! Disease/lack of proper supplies/water was a major factor, but it certainly didn't help that his fleet was destroyed by the British. He fled back to France, abandoning the remains of his army to their fate. He then retired in shame... Oh, wait, no, he then began his rise to political power.
The chapters 106-116 about the fantastic creatures found in India and Arabia are out of place in a book called Histories, but they are very entertaining.
I feel sorry for the poor mother lions. Biology does not seem to be H.'s strong point.
I can see the long-tailed sheep pulling the little wagons behind them.
If I am not mistaken, and please correct me if I am, Sparta had a rigid caste system. The helots had a harder life than the military, didn't they? It may have been well-governed, but what what was life like for the ordinary people?
Rosemarie wrote: "The chapters 106-116 about the fantastic creatures found in India and Arabia are out of place in a book called Histories, but they are very entertaining.
I feel sorry for the poor mother lions. Bi..."
Despite the fantastic nature of the creatures he describes, Herodotus makes a very interesting observation:
And this phenomenon indeed makes sense: for divine providence in its wisdom created all creatures that are cowardly and that serve as food for others to reproduce in great numbers so as to assure that some would be left despite the constant consumption of them, while it has made sure that those animals which are brutal and aggressive predators reproduce very few offspring.
Replace "divine providence" with "natural selection" and it might sound a bit like Darwin!
Assuming that there is a reason for everything that Herodotus decided to include in his "Inquiries," I wonder... Could there be a parallel between the war amongst the animals in this passage and human wars?
Rosemarie wrote: "If I am not mistaken, and please correct me if I am, Sparta had a rigid caste system. The helots had a harder life than the military, didn't they? It may have been well-governed, but what what was ..."Helots were slaves, and would not have been considered Spartan citizens - though they outnumbered citizens by several times. Some authors have suggested that the (in)famously militaristic Spartan culture evolved because it was the only way to keep such a large slave population in check. Life for a Helot was brutal. That doesn't mean citizens had it easy - there is a reason that "spartan" is used today to mean "severe", or "lacking comfort". All males began military training at a very young age & were routinely deprived of food, etc, and encouraged to fend for themselves by stealing from Helots. The weak were literally weeded out before reaching maturity. Really just a terrible place to live by any modern standard.
Human wars are more horrible than animal wars, on the whole. The lust for power and control seems to exist among tyrants and conquerors throughout history and we have seen many examples in book three alone.
I found Zopyrus' strategy particularly cruel. Send one thousand, then two thousand and then four thousand men armed only with swords. That way they will be more easily slaughtered.I think that Herodotus may embellish some of his more fanciful stories. Sadly, this last story sounds only too true.
Kyle wrote: "Helots were slaves, and would not have been considered Spartan citizens ..."I think I read somewhere (not checking) that the Spartans had a standing declaration of war against the Helots, renewed yearly. So a Spartan killing a Helot would commit an act of war, not a crime.
Patrice wrote: "Odd that he calls them ants. He compares their size to a fox, which makes sense if they were marmots. This has to be a case of distortion in communication."I've read somewhere (always in the internet...) that the Persian word for "marmot" would sound similar to "mountain ant" which may have been the cause for this distortion.
Patirice, it's true that shopkeepers generally don't go around killing people. It is the higher-ups that cause the misery. I'm thinking here of the coal mine owners in Victorian England(and in Germinal by Zola).
Monica, that would makes sense if he had never seen it written down. I am sure we have all heard small children mangling song lyrics and creating some interesting versions of the song. When you learn a new language orally, the same thing can happen.
Wendel wrote: "Kyle wrote: "Helots were slaves, and would not have been considered Spartan citizens ..."I think I read somewhere (not checking) that the Spartans had a standing declaration of war against the He..."
This perpetual state of "war" was a policy put in place to prevent revolts. It wasn't war so much as terrorism, IMO.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe (other topics)The Ants' Gold: The discovery of the Greek El Dorado in the Himalayas (other topics)
II. The next section concerns Polycrates, the tyrant of Samos. Polycrates is friends with Amasis, who explains to him that his inordinate good fortune is a dangerous thing. Herodotus goes on demonstrate in a story how Polycrates is unable to get unlucky. Polycrates decides to get rid of some of his more undesirable citizens by sending them to Cambyses to help in his conquest of Egypt. They don't make it to Egypt; instead they end up asking the Spartans for help in defeating Polycrates. The Spartans agree because as you recall, the Samians were the ones who stole their swimming-pool sized mixing cup in Book 1. Apparently the Samians also stole a breastplate offered by the Corinthians, so they get involved as well. This allows Herodotus to tell the story of Periandros and Lycophron. In any event, the Spartans are unsuccessful, and Herodotus explains that the reason he has given this lengthy account of the Samians is because they achieved "the three greatest engineering works of all the Hellenes."