2011:herodotus-analysis-of-the-historical-process
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 2011:herodotus-analysis-of-the-historical-process [2012/04/13 21:24] – frank | 2011:herodotus-analysis-of-the-historical-process [2015/12/16 10:58] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | ~~NOTOC~~ | + | < |
| + | |||
| + | <a href=" | ||
| + | |||
| + | </ | ||
| ====== Herodotus' | ====== Herodotus' | ||
| Line 6: | Line 10: | ||
| {{: | {{: | ||
| + | |||
| + | < | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==== Authored by Frank Redmond, 2006 ==== | ||
| + | |||
| ==== Introduction ==== | ==== Introduction ==== | ||
| Line 51: | Line 60: | ||
| - | On the other hand, bad planning leads to failure as is seen in the demise of Cambyses in Ethiopia and the failed expedition of Darius to Scythia. Both men failed to foresee the extremes which they would face in these hostile lands. Cambyses loses a substantial number of soldiers and camels to the harsh desert; Darius loses men left and right while he was running in circles trying to catch the roaming Scythians. Herodotus vividly depicts the failure of Cambyses as such: “If Cambyses, when he saw what the situation was, had changed his mind and returned to his base, he would, in spite of his original error [which was bad planning], have shown some sense; but as it was, he paid not the least attention to what was happening and continued his advance. The troops kept themselves alive by eating grass [...], but once they reached the desert, some of them were reduced to the dreadful expedient of cannibalism” (3.25). If Cambyses thought more carefully about how he was to invade Ethiopia, he might have been able to defeat the Ethiopians. | + | On the other hand, bad planning leads to failure as is seen in the demise of [[wp>Cambyses]] in Ethiopia and the failed expedition of Darius to Scythia. Both men failed to foresee the extremes which they would face in these hostile lands. Cambyses loses a substantial number of soldiers and camels to the harsh desert; Darius loses men left and right while he was running in circles trying to catch the roaming Scythians. Herodotus vividly depicts the failure of Cambyses as such: “If Cambyses, when he saw what the situation was, had changed his mind and returned to his base, he would, in spite of his original error [which was bad planning], have shown some sense; but as it was, he paid not the least attention to what was happening and continued his advance. The troops kept themselves alive by eating grass [...], but once they reached the desert, some of them were reduced to the dreadful expedient of cannibalism” (3.25). If Cambyses thought more carefully about how he was to invade Ethiopia, he might have been able to defeat the Ethiopians. |
| Line 63: | Line 72: | ||
| - | One great example is the madness of Cambyses and the killing of Apis. By taunting, wounding, and killing the calf, Cambyses disrupts the nomos [custom, law] of the people of Egypt. Herodotus states that this is likely the reason why Cambyses went mad, or it was at least likely a major contributor. After the Apis affair, Cambyses would go on to commit more outrages like killing his brother Smerdis, having sex with his sister, and murdering a boy to practice hi archery skills. All these outrages further broke the rule of nomos and threw the balance off-kilter. It is only with the death of Cambyses that the balance gets righted again. In response to the actions of Cambyses, Herodotus states that “custom is king of all”; that is, nomos is the ruling force of the universe and is what determines what the balance is made of. The wisdom to be found in the Cambyses’ affair is that nemesis visits those who throw the balance off-kilter. | + | One great example is the madness of Cambyses and the killing |
| - | Another instance of the balance being disturbed is with the burning of Sardis and its temple during the Ionian revolt. With this event, the whole dynamic of the revolt changes. Suddenly the balance shifts in a negatively for the Greeks and the revolt goes downhill. Thus after the burning of Sardis, Persia quickly regains control of the situation, Athens resigns from the revolt, and slowly but surely the Ionian revolt is quelled. One can see easily the principle of nemesis [retribution] at play. The Ionian Revolt comes to a close and stability reestablishes itself. | + | Another instance of the balance being disturbed is with the burning of Sardis and its temple during the Ionian revolt. With this event, the whole dynamic of the revolt changes. Suddenly the balance shifts in a negatively for the Greeks and the revolt goes downhill. Thus after the burning of Sardis, Persia quickly regains control of the situation, Athens resigns from the revolt, and slowly but surely the Ionian revolt is quelled. One can see easily the principle of nemesis [retribution] at play. The [[wp>Ionian Revolt]] comes to a close and stability reestablishes itself. |
| - | Another instance is with the Battle of Marathon. We are told that the Persian force that is going to Greece to battle is so enormous it causes a kinesis in the middle of the Aegean. This kinesis forces the balance to go off-center, and the balance is only reestablished when the Persians do land and are aptly defeated by the Athenian company in the Battle at Marathon. | + | Another instance is with the Battle of Marathon. We are told that the Persian force that is going to Greece to battle is so enormous it causes a kinesis in the middle of the Aegean. This kinesis forces the balance to go off-center, and the balance is only reestablished when the Persians do land and are aptly defeated by the Athenian company in the Battle at [[wp>Marathon]]. |
2011/herodotus-analysis-of-the-historical-process.1334370247.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/01/14 22:47 (external edit)