Affiliation:
1. Institute for History , Leiden University , Doelensteeg 16 , VL Leiden , The Netherlands
Abstract
AbstractThis article highlights two aspects of the language used in Classical Greek literary sources to discuss pitched battle. First, the sources regularly use unqualified forms of the verbkinduneuein, “to take a risk,” when they mean fighting a battle. They do so especially in contexts of deliberation about the need to fight. Second, they often describe the outcome of major engagements in terms of luck, fate, and random chance, at the explicit expense of human agency. Taken together, these aspects of writing on war suggest that pitched battle was seen as an inherently risky course of action with unacceptably unpredictable results, which was therefore best avoided. Several examples show that the decision to fight was indeed evaluated in such terms. This practice casts further doubt on the traditional view that Greek armies engaged in pitched battles as a matter of principle.
Reference42 articles.
1. Agrimonti, S. “Xenophon’s piety within the Hipparchikos.” In The Religious Aspects of War in the Ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome, edited by K. Ulanowski, 194–205. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
2. Bouvier, D. “De la plane de Troie au champ de bataille hoplitique: la tradition d’une guerre sans ruse en Grèce ancienne.” In Ruses, Secrets et Mensognes chez les Historiens Grecs et Latins, edited by H. Olivier, P. Giovannelli-Jouanna and F. Bérard, 27–50. Lyon: Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, 2006.
3. Christ, M. The Bad Citizen in Classical Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge U. P., 2006.
4. Corvisier, J.-N. “Incompétences militaires et causes de l’échec en Grèce ancienne.” REMA 6 (2013): 35–52.
5. Corvisier, J.-N. “Les phénomènes naturels: une cause d’échec dans la guerre antique?” HiMA 7 (2018): 3–12.