Polybius and Xenophon. Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders, in N. Miltsios-M. Tamiolaki (eds.), Polybius and His Legacy, Βerlin, Walter de Gruyter 2018: 227-241.

Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders Polybius’ relationship with his predecessors has not been fully explored.1 Although it has been more customary to compare Polybius with Thucydides, especially regarding their common methodological principles and narrative techniques, current scholarship underlines Polybius’ close(r) engagement with fourth-century historiography.2 This study follows this recent trend: it aims at formulating a working hypothesis and at prompting further reflection on the relationship between Polybius and the Athenian historian of the fourth century BCE, Xenophon. This comparison has not attracted much scholarly attention. Brian McGing notes some parallels between the presentation of Scipio in Polybius and that of Agesilaus in Xenophon and observes: “it is hard to imagine that Xenophon did not provide some sort of model for Polybius to follow when writing himself into the story of Rome … Perhaps there are more parallels than has been generally thought”.3 Bruce Gibson has also convincingly analyzed the episode of the Mercenary War in the first book of Polybius’ Histories in the light of Xenophon’s Anabasis,4 while F. Walbank has spotted some indirect allusions to the Hellenika and the Anabasis in Polybius’ work.5 This paper will focus on the third book of Polybius’ Histories and will propose a comparison with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. It will suggest that Polybius’ presentation of Hannibal could have been inspired by Xenophon’s portrayal of Cyrus the Great. �� 1 McGing 2010, 52–66 sketches out his debt to the classical historians (Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Ephorus). 2 In fact, Polybius mentions Thucydides only once, when he refers to the authors who wrote Greek history after Thucydides (Plb. 8.11.3): Καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ περὶ τὰς ὁλοσχερεῖς διαλήψεις οὐδεὶς ἂν εὐδοκήσειε τῷ προειρημένῳ συγγραφεῖ· ὅς γ’ ἐπιβαλόμενος γράφειν τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς πράξεις ἀφ’ ὧν Θουκυδίδης ἀπέλιπε … For the relationship of Polybius with Thucydides, see Rood 2012 and Miltsios 2013b, on the relationship between Thucydides Book 1 and Polybius’ narrative of prokataskeue (Book 1). Cf., however, Parmegianni and Scardino (this volume) who stress Polybius’ (greater) dependence on fourth-century historiography, the latter denying Thucydides’ influence altogether. 3 McGing 2010, 61. 4 Gibson 2013. 5 Walbank 1957 ad Plb. 2.37.4 and 4.26.2. Cf. also Gibson 2013, 164, who views the phrase μετὰ ταῦτα and the word ταραχῆς in Plb. 3.14.12–13 as indirect allusions to Xenophon’s Hellenika. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110584844-012 226 � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki Before proceeding to our analysis, two methodological questions should be addressed: first, to what extent can we assume Polybius’ knowledge of Xenophon? Second, since Xenophon presents several efficient leaders in his works, why are we singling out Cyrus the Great? In order to answer the first question, it is necessary to examine Polybius’ references to Xenophon. Polybius mentions the Athenian historian three times. The first occurrence is found in an intriguing passage of the third book: Polybius hints here at Xenophon’s Anabasis, by interpreting the successful return of Greek mercenaries to Greece through the hostile Persian Empire as the initial cause of the war between Greeks and Persians: The first (i.e. initial cause) was the retreat of the Greeks under Xenophon (ἡ τῶν μετὰ Ξενοφῶντος) from the upper satrapies, in which, though they traversed the whole of Asia, a hostile country, none of the barbarians ventured to face them.6 Bruce Gibson remarks that Polybius refers here to Xenophon, although Xenophon himself refrains from revealing that he is the author of the Anabasis and uses the pseudonym Themistogenes (Xen. Hell. 3.1).7 It could be further assumed that the expression “under Xenophon” testifies specifically to an established reception of Xenophon’s Anabasis during the Hellenistic period. In the sixth book of his Histories Polybius mentions Xenophon again, together with other authors of the fourth century BCE (such as Ephorus, Plato, and Callisthenes) who wrote about the Cretan constitution: To pass to the constitution of Crete, two points here demand our attention. How was it that the most learned of the ancient writers—Ephorus, Xenophon, Callisthenes, and Plato— (πῶς οἱ λογιώτατοι τῶν ἀρχαίων συγγραφέων, Ἔφορος, Ξενοφῶν, Καλλισθένης, Πλάτων) state in the first place that it is one and the same with that of Lacedaemon and in the second place pronounce it worthy of commendation?8 �� 6 Plb. 3.6.10. Translations of Polybius in this paper are from the Loeb edition (Paton 2001). All emphases in italics are ours. Τhis passage forms part of a wider argument of causation regarding the Second Punic War and the war between Greeks and Persians more generally, from the expedition of the Greek Mercenaries until Alexander the Great. The expedition of the so-called Ten Thousand is perceived as a successful operation against the Persians already in the fourth century BCE. Cf. Isocr. Paneg. 145–149, Phil. 90. See Walbank 1957 ad loc. 7 Cf. Gibson 2013, 163. 8 Plb. 6.45.1. Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � 227 Leaving aside the problematic character of this reference,9 the fact that Polybius lists Xenophon among the λογιώτατοι (“most erudite”, “most learned”) of the ancient authors betrays an appreciation of his predecessor. Finally, in the tenth book of his Histories, Polybius cites a famous phrase from Xenophon’s Hellenika and Agesilaus when he describes Scipio’s ardent preparations for war: So with the infantry exercising and drilling on the ground outside the town, with the fleet at sea practicing manoeuvres and rowing, and with the men in the town sharpening weapons, forging brass or carpentering, in a word, with everyone busily engaged upon the preparation of weapons, no one could have helped when he saw that town saying, in the words of Xenophon, that it was “a workshop of war” (οὐκ ἔσθ’ ὃς οὐκ ἂν εἶπε κατὰ τὸν Ξενοφῶντα τότε θεασάμενος ἐκείνην τὴν πόλιν ἐργαστήριον εἶναι πολέμου).10 Besides these references, which could testify to Polybius’ (direct or indirect) awareness of Xenophon’s works, the two authors also have several biographical features in common: their separation from their motherland, their educational standards, their interest in riding and hunting, their high political and social position in the new land in which they lived (Rome and Scillous respectively), their personal participation in military activities, and their friendship with great political men of their time (such as Scipio, Agesilaus, and Cyrus the Younger).11 Consequently, it is not improbable that Polybius might have felt a kind of affinity with the Athenian historian. Concerning the second methodological issue, our focus on the Cyropaedia: the Cyropaedia is the first extensive biographical treatment of a leader. According to Arnaldo Momigliano, it paved the way for the emergence of the genre of biography, having exerted a considerable influence both in Antiquity and in modern �� 9 Xenophon had not dealt with the Cretan constitution in his works, so Polybius wrongly cites him among the authors who have praised the Cretan constitution. For the various problems raised by this passage and the proposed solutions, see Walbank 1957 ad loc. 10 Plb. 10.20.7. Cf. Xen. Hell. 3.4.17–18 (ἀξίαν δὲ καὶ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ἐν ᾗ ἦν [τὴν Ἔφεσον] θέας ἐποίησεν· ἥ τε γὰρ ἀγορὰ ἦν μεστὴ παντοδαπῶν καὶ ἵππων καὶ ὅπλων ὠνίων, οἵ τε χαλκοτύποι καὶ οἱ τέκτονες καὶ οἱ χαλκεῖς καὶ οἱ σκυτοτόμοι καὶ οἱ ζωγράφοι πάντες πολεμικὰ ὅπλα κατεσκεύαζον, ὥστε τὴν πόλιν ὄντως οἴεσθαι πολέμου ἐργαστήριον εἶναι) and Xen. Ages.1.26 (ἀξίαν δὲ καὶ ὅλην τὴν πόλιν ἐν ᾗ ἦν θέας ἐποίησεν. ἥ τε γὰρ ἀγορὰ μεστὴ ἦν παντοδαπῶν καὶ ὅπλων καὶ ἵππων ὠνίων, οἵ τε χαλκοτύποι καὶ οἱ τέκτονες καὶ οἱ σιδηρεῖς καὶ σκυτεῖς καὶ γραφεῖς πάντες πολεμικὰ ὅπλα κατεσκεύαζον·ὥστε τὴν πόλιν ὄντως ἂν ἡγήσω πολέμου ἐργαστήριον εἶναι). 11 For the life of Polybius, see Walbank 1972, 1–31. For the life of Xenophon, see Délébecque 1957 and Anderson 1974. ��� � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki times.12 Interestingly, the third book of Polybius’ Histories revolves around the personality and military qualities of a famous leader, Hannibal, Rome’s great enemy;13 it thus evokes in many ways the biographical track, which Xenophon followed concerning Cyrus the Great. Of course, Xenophon praises several leaders in his works (Agesilaus, Cyrus the Younger, Epaminondas, Jason of Pherae, etc.). However, Cyrus the Great, like Hannibal, was not Greek. From this perspective, he could have served as a more convenient paradigm for Polybius. Moreover, given that Polybius had a growing interest in the rise and fall of empires, it is very probable that he was fascinated by Cyrus’ successes and domination of the vast Persian empire. Finally, and perhaps more tellingly, the legendary nature of Cyrus’ leadership14 could be another factor that would justify Polybius’ modeling of his hero on the famous Persian king. In what follows we will highlight some parallels (linguistic and thematic) between the narratives of the two authors with regards to the presentation of their model leaders (Hannibal and Cyrus the Great respectively). We will dwell on the following topics: family bonds, strategic qualities, and the leaders’ character. In our opinion, the accumulation of these parallels allows us to make a case for a possible influence of Xenophon on Polybius. � Family bonds Polybius seems to be motivated by a biographical interest when he relates Hannibal’s close bond with his father, Hamilcar. In a vivid narrative in the third book of his Histories, he describes how Hamilcar inspired Hannibal with hatred against the Romans. Similarly, in the first book of the Cyropaedia, Xenophon narrates the encounter between the Persian King Cambyses and his young son, Cyrus (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.1–44). The two scenes share several common motifs. In both episodes paternal advice is linked with young age. Polybius states that Hannibal was nine years old when he received the first advice from his father: At the time when his father was about to start with his army on his expedition to Spain, he himself, then nine years of age, was standing by the altar, while Hamilcar was sacrificing to Zeus (καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ τὴν εἰς Ἰβηρίαν ἔξοδον μέλλοι στρατεύεσθαι μετὰ �� 12 Momigliano 1993, 55–57, Haegg 2012, 51–66. 13 Miltsios 2013a, 68–70. 14 Xenophon emphasizes Cyrus’ great reputation at the beginning of the Cyropaedia (Cyr. 1.4.25): “Cyrus was on the tongues of all … both in story and in song”. Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � 229 τῶν δυνάμεων, ἔτη μὲν ἔχειν ἐννέα, θύοντος δ’ αὐτοῦ τῷ Διὶ παρεστάναι παρὰ τὸν βωμόν). When, on the omens being favourable, Hamilcar had poured a libation to the gods and performed all the customary rites, he ordered the others who were attending the sacrifice to withdraw to a slight distance and calling Hannibal to him asked him kindly if he wished to accompany him on the expedition. On his accepting with delight, and, like a boy, even begging to do it besides (καί τι καὶ προσαξιώσαντος παιδικῶς), his father took him by the hand, led him up to the altar, and bade him lay his hand on the victim and swear never to be the friend of the Romans.15 When Cyrus meets Cambyses, he is around twenty-seven years old, but the whole conversation greatly relies on his recollections about the education he received during his childhood (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.3: μέμνημαι, 1.6.5: μέμνησαι, 1.6.7: ἐπελάθου, 1.6.8: μέμνημαι, 1.6.12: μέμνησαι); Xenophon has also already informed us that the Persians begin their education both in family and at schools at a very young age (Χen. Cyr. 1.2.3–8; cf. Xen. Anab. 1.9.4). Furthermore, both authors stress the piety of the father: Polybius presents Hamilcar sacrificing to Zeus and it is only when he receives favorable omens that he proceeds to give his advice to Hannibal. Similarly, the encounter between Cambyses and Cyrus in the first book of the Cyropaedia is preceded by good omens, and Cambyses also gives Cyrus detailed advice on the importance of securing the goodwill of the gods and being pious (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.1–2). More importantly, both Polybius and Xenophon suggest that the success of a leader can be partly conceived as (and depends upon) the implementation of paternal advice. Polybius states: Hannibal tried as far as he could to keep his hands off this city, wishing to give the Romans no avowed pretext for war, until he had secured his possession of all the rest of the country, following in this his father Hamilcar’s suggestions and advice (κατὰ τὰς Ἀμίλκου τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποθήκας καὶ παραινέσεις)”.16 Similarly, Xenophon presents Cyrus taking into account and implementing his father’s suggestions on various occasions and on a wide range of topics: providing soldiers with supplies, military preparations, tactics, taking care of the soldiers’ health, fostering discipline, gaining advantage over the enemy.17 In sum, �� 15 Plb. 3.11.5–8. 16 Plb. 3.14.10. 17 Providing soldiers with supplies (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.7: advice, Xen. Cyr. 4.5.58: implementation), military preparations (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.10: advice, Xen. Cyr. 2.1.21: implementation), tactics (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.14: advice, Xen. Cyr. 2.1.20: implementation), taking care of the soldiers’ health (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.16: advice, Xen. Cyr. 2.1.20: implementation), fostering discipline (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.20: advice, 230 � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki although Xenophon’s narrative of the encounter between father and son is more detailed than Polybius’, it could have served as a kernel, which Polybius reworked and adapted in his Histories with the aim of presenting a more complete portrait of Hannibal. Both authors also present their model leaders collaborating with their relatives. In these contexts the superiority of model leaders is brought to the fore. For instance, Polybius presents Hannibal giving orders to his elder brother Hasdrubal and also summoning his younger brother Mago: After two days’ march he halted and, constructing a bridge of boats, ordered Hasdrubal to see to the passage of the army and he himself crossing at once (καταλύσας δὲ δευτεραῖος καὶ γεφυρώσας τοῖς ποταμίοις πλοίοις τὴν διάβασιν Ἀσδρούβᾳ μὲν ἐπέταξεν διακομίζειν τὸ πλῆθος).18 The Carthaginian general now consulted with his brother Mago and the rest of the staff about the coming battle, and on their all approving of his plan, after the troops had had their supper, he summoned Mago, who was still quite young, but full of martial enthusiasm and trained from boyhood in the art of war, and put under his command a hundred men from the cavalry and the same number of infantry (πλὴν ὅ γε τῶν Καρχηδονίων στρατηγὸς κοινολογηθεὶς Μάγωνι τἀδελφῷ καὶ τοῖς συνέδροις περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἀγῶνος, συγκατατιθεμένων αὐτῷ πάντων ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς, ἅμα τῷ δειπνοποιήσασθαι τὸ στρατόπεδον ἀνακαλεσάμενος Μάγωνα τὸν ἀδελφόν, ὄντα νέον μὲν ὁρμῆς δὲ πλήρη καὶ παιδομαθῆ περὶ τὰ πολεμικά, συνέστησε τῶν ἱππέων ἄνδρας ἑκατὸν καὶ πεζοὺς τοὺς ἴσους).19 The words ἐπέταξε and ἀνακαλεσάμενος are telling in these contexts. In the Cyropaedia Xenophon presents Cyrus collaborating with his uncle, the Median King Cyaxares. Cyaxares initially invites Cyrus to join the battle against the Assyrians (Xen. Cyr. 1.5.4: ἔπεμπε δὲ καὶ πρὸς Κῦρον, δεόμενος αὐτοῦ πειρᾶσθαι ἄρχοντα ἐλθεῖν τῶν ἀνδρῶν). However, Cyrus manages to gain the goodwill of the Medes and, despite the fact that he is not yet king, he is eventually treated and respected by the Medes as if he were king, thus supplanting Cyaxares and provoking his envy (Xen. Cyr. 4.1.13, 5.5.25–26).20 The motif of the leader surpassing his relatives in military qualities and talent is another idea that Polybius may have borrowed from Xenophon. �� Xen. Cyr. 2.4.10: implementation), taking advantage of the enemy (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.27: advice, Xen. Cyr. 7.5.21: implementation). 18 Plb. 3.66.6. 19 Plb. 3.71.5. 20 For Cyaxares’ envy, see Tatum 1989, 115–33, Gray 2011, 267–76, Tamiolaki 2016, 54–57. Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � ��� � Strategy Competent strategy is an important component of good leadership. Both Polybius and Xenophon depict their model leaders as perceptive and successful generals. We will first present some common motifs regarding the leaders’ attitude towards their enemies and potential allies and we will then turn to their attitude towards their soldiers inside their camps. A common motif of the two leaders regarding their attitude towards their enemies is the appeal to fear. Polybius underlines time and again that Hannibal had recourse to fear and that fear was an important root of his success. For instance, he describes Hannibal’s plan to attack Saguntum as follows: … he was convinced that by this blow he would inspire universal terror, and render the Iberian tribes who had already submitted more orderly (καταπληξάμενος ἅπαντας εὐτακτοτέρους μὲν ἐπέπειστο παρασκευάσειν τοὺς ὑφ’ αὐτὸν ἤδη ταττομένους) and those who were still independent more cautious, while above all he would be enabled to advance safely with no enemy left in his rear.21 The motif of universal terror appears in exactly the same wording at the beginning of the Cyropaedia and is again combined with an image of universal orderliness and obedience: He (sc. Cyrus) was able to cover so vast a region with the fear which he inspired, that he struck all men with terror and no one tried to withstand him (καὶ ὅμως ἐδυνάσθη ἐφικέσθαι μὲν ἐπὶ τοσαύτην γῆν τῷ ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ φόβῳ, ὥστε καταπλῆξαι πάντας καὶ μηδένα ἐπιχειρεῖν αὐτῷ).22 Polybius also remarks that the conquest of the Allobroges proved of great service to Hannibal, because “he struck such terror into the next tribes that none of those in the neighborhood of the ascent were likely to venture to molest him” (φόβον ἐνειργάσατο τοῖς ἑξῆς πρὸς τὸ μὴ τολμᾶν αὐτῷ ῥᾳδίως ἐγχειρεῖν μηδένα τῶν παρακειμένων ταῖς ἀναβολαῖς).23 Similarly, when Hannibal massacres the Taurini, Polybius again notes that “he struck such terror into the neighboring tribes of barbarians that they all came in at once and submitted to him” (τοιοῦτον ἐνειργάσατο φόβον τοῖς σύνεγγυς κατοικοῦσιν τῶν βαρβάρων ὥστε πάντας ἐκ �� 21 Plb. 3.17.5. 22 Xen. Cyr. 1.1.5. Translations of the Cyropaedia are from Ambler 2001 and Miller 1994 (sometimes adapted). 23 Plb. 3.51.13. 232 � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki χειρὸς παραγίνεσθαι).24 Xenophon’s Cyrus employs similar tactics. For example, Xenophon relates in detail how Cyrus greatly terrified the Armenian King who deserted from him by not paying the tribute: When the Armenian heard from the messenger what Cyrus had said, he was stunned (ἐξεπλάγη), as he reflected that he had been unjust in neglecting the tribute and in not sending the army. The greatest problem, which he especially feared (ἐφοβεῖτο), was that he was about to be discovered in the early stages of fortifying his palace so as to make it sufficient for armed resistance. Hesitating (ὀκνῶν) because of all these things, he sent around to gather his own power … At this point the Armenian no longer dared (οὐκέτι ἔτλη) to come to blows, so he withdrew.25 The Armenian King’s son, Tigranes, also explicitly states that his father is greatly terrorized by Cyrus and presents this fear as the worst kind of enslavement (Xen. Cyr. 3.1.23). In a similar vein, in the fourth book of the Cyropaedia, Cyrus orders the enemy soldiers to surrender their arms, otherwise they will lose their heads (Xen. Cyr. 4.2.32).26 Cyrus can also appear harsh even towards his own men. Xenophon states in the fourth book of the Cyropaedia that he issues a proclamation to all his commissaries to come to him and that “to anyone who should dare to disobey he threatened direst punishment” (Xen. Cyr. 4.2.35). It thus becomes obvious that both Polybius and Xenophon consider fear an indispensable prerequisite of a leader’s success. Although fear plays an important role in all historiographical texts,27 we would like to suggest that Polybius could have been inspired precisely by Xenophon’s treatment of fear in the Cyropaedia, not least since in this work the appeal of fear is more clearly and positively linked with good leadership and the consolidation of power. Fear is not, of course, the sole basis of a leader’s success. Hannibal and Cyrus can also display kindness. We observe again a similarity in the vocabulary employed by the two authors. The term used by Polybius to describe Hannibal’s kindness is φιλανθρωπία (Plb. 3.77.3: ἐν τῇ πάσῃ φιλανθρωπίᾳ διεξῆγεν). Φιλανθρωπία is also one of Cyrus’ cardinal virtues: Xenophon characterizes him as φιλανθρωπότατος (Xen. Cyr. 1.2.1). Moreover, Xenophon emphasizes that the �� 24 Plb. 3.60.10. 25 Xen. Cyr. 3.1.1–3. 26 Cf. also Xen. Ages. 1.33: Agesilaus burns Sardis and invites its inhabitants to become his allies; otherwise he will have recourse to arms. 27 See, for instance, Hdt. 4.126–127 (Darius threatens the Scythians), 5.106.3 (Darius threatens Histiaeus), 8.111–112 (Themistocles threatens the Andrians), Thuc. 5.85–112 (the Athenians threaten the Melians). Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � 233 practice of kindness has important political connotations and constitutes a significant organizational principle of the Persian empire (Xen. Cyr. 8.2.1).28 It is interesting that both Hannibal and Cyrus exploit the political potential of φιλανθρωπία: they display kindness in order to achieve better political results. Polybius recounts that Hannibal treated the Celtic prisoners with kindness, because he wished to get them on his side against the Romans (Plb. 3.77.3–4). In another instance, Hannibal refrains from killing the captives (Plb. 3.77.3–4). Cyrus the Great also releases prisoners because he considers this tactic more profitable (Xen. Cyr. 4.4.6: σύμφορον). Moreover, he treats the Armenian captives with mercy, again because he is convinced by Tigranes that this policy will be more advantageous to his empire (Xen. Cyr. 3.1.16). Military tactics is another field in which we observe noteworthy similarities between the two leaders. For example, both Hannibal and Cyrus are interested in mixing cavalry with infantry. Polybius describes Hannibal’s array in battle as follows: on his left close to the river he placed his Spanish and Celtic horses facing the Roman cavalry, next these half his heavy-armed Africans … (ἐτίθει δ’ ἐπ' αὐτὸν μὲν τὸν ποταμόν, ἐπὶ τῶν εὐωνύμων, τοὺς Ἴβηρας καὶ Κελτοὺς ἱππεῖς ἀντίους τοῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἱππεῦσι, συνεχεῖς δὲ τούτοις πεζοὺς τοὺς ἡμίσεις τῶν ἐν τοῖς βαρέσι καθοπλισμοῖς Λιβύων).29 This scene recalls a similar episode of the Cyropaedia, when Cyrus offers shields and swords to his taxiarchs and orders them to carry them, following after the horses (note the words συνεχεῖς and ἕπωνται in the two authors): And leading them off right away, he assigned them to their captains. He ordered that they give them their shields and their light swords, so that they might follow with these behind the horses (καὶ εὐθὺς ἄγων πρὸς τοὺς ταξιάρχους συνέστησεν αὐτούς, καὶ ἐκέλευσε τά τε γέρρα καὶ τὰς ψιλὰς μαχαίρας τούτοις δοῦναι, ὅπως ἔχοντες σὺν τοῖς ἵπποις ἕπωνται).30 Another similar scene concerns the leaders’ tactics towards the enemy: both Hannibal and Cyrus are presented preparing their troops for battle and then withdrawing them, because their enemies (Favius Maximus and the Assyrian King respectively) are not eager to fight (the linguistic and thematic parallels are again worth noticing: παρετάξατο/παραταξάμενος, οὐδενὸς ἐπεξιόντος/οὐκ ἀντεξῆσαν, ἀνεχώρησεν/ἀπήγαγε τὸ στράτευμα): �� 28 For Cyrus’ φιλανθρωπία, see Azoulay 2004, 318–26, Noël 2009, Sandridge 2012, 79–96. Agesilaus also shows kindness, but Xenophon uses the word πραότης for him (Xen. Ages. 1.20–21). 29 Plb. 3.113.7. 30 Xen. Cyr. 4.5.58. 234 � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki When he learnt that Fabius had arrived, Hannibal, wishing to strike such a blow as would effectually cow the enemy, led his forces out and drew them up in order of battle at a short distance from the Roman camp, but after waiting some time, as nobody came out to meet him, he retired again to his own camp (Ἀννίβας δὲ συνεὶς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ Φαβίου καὶ βουλόμενος ἐξ ἐφόδου καταπλήξασθαι τοὺς ὑπεναντίους, ἐξαγαγὼν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ συνεγγίσας τῷ τῶν Ῥωμαίων χάρακι παρετάξατο. χρόνον δέ τινα μείνας, οὐδενὸς ἐπεξιόντος αὖθις ἀνεχώρησεν εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρεμβολήν).31 After this he went to Babylon, keeping the same order as when the battle was fought. When the Assyrians did not come out in opposition, Cyrus…had the army draw back (Ἐκ τούτου δὴ ᾔει πρὸς Βαβυλῶνα παραταξάμενος ὥσπερ ὅτε ἡ μάχη ἦν. ὡς δ’ οὐκ ἀντεξῇσαν οἱ Ἀσσύριοι … ὁ δὲ Κῦρος … ἀπήγαγε τὸ στράτευμα).32 Furthermore, we find several thematic parallels between Polybius and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia with regards to the strategy of the two leaders. For example, both leaders put forward new ways of fighting: Cyrus familiarizes the Persians with cavalry fighting (Xen. Cyr. 4.3.4–15), while Hannibal introduces complex manoeuvres in his fighting against the Romans (Plb. 3.115.9–10).33 F. Walbank also notes that both Polybius and Xenophon use the term πελτοφόροι (Plb. 3.75.7 and Xen. Cyr. 7.1.24).34 Moreover, the two leaders mix up different nations in their armies and try to foster a harmonious collaboration between them: Hannibal mixes Africans and Spaniards, while Cyrus encourages cooperation between the Persians, the Medes, the Hyrcanians, the Armenians, and the Chaldaeans. Both leaders are also depicted as intelligent and foreseeing the enemy’s actions: they surprise the enemy at night, they send envoys to spy on the enemy, they try to learn the topography of the enemy land, which they exploit by opening roads and trenches, and they are capable of choosing the appropriate occasion for battle.35 It goes the same with the leaders’ attitude towards their potential allies. Polybius’ Histories and the Cyropaedia again contain similar scenes. For instance, Polybius informs us that Hannibal was initially distrustful towards the barbarians who came to him and willingly offered their friendship, but then decided to accept their alliance, because he thought that this attitude would make them more pacific and less eager to attack him (Plb. 3.52.6–7). This scene evokes Cyrus’ alliance with the Hyrcanians, described in the fourth book of the Cyropaedia: the �� 31 Plb. 3.89.1–2. 32 Xen. Cyr. 5.3.5–8. 33 Cf. Xen. Ages. 1.23, 2.5: Agesilaus introduces horsemanship. 34 Walbank 1957, 409. 35 Plb. 3.93.2, Xen. Cyr. 7.5.21; Plb. 3.50.7, Xen. Cyr. 5.3.56; Plb. 3.79.1, Xen. Cyr. 4.4.4; Plb. 3.55.6–7, Xen. Cyr. 7.5.9; Plb. 3.14.5, Xen. Cyr. 3.3.32. Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � 235 Hyrcanians express their wish to become Cyrus’ allies; Cyrus is initially suspicious of them, but eventually becomes their ally and uses them profitably in subsequent expeditions (Xen. Cyr. 4.2.7). Furthermore, both authors present their model leaders fostering alliances with the enemies of their enemies: Hannibal cooperates with the Celts, who have a long-standing conflict with the Romans (Plb. 3.34.2–3), while Cyrus the Great allies himself to Gobryas and Gadatas, who deserted from the Assyrian King, the Persians’ greatest enemy (Xen. Cyr. 4.6.2). These similarities could be considered coincidental, simply attesting to a kind of intertextuality of characters or a repetition of historical circumstances. However, if these scenes are studied together with the linguistic parallels noted above, they constitute cumulative evidence and hence, in our opinion, reinforce the possibility that Polybius could have modeled his presentation of Hannibal on Cyrus the Great. As for the leaders’ attitude towards their soldiers, we again observe some remarkable parallels between Hannibal and Cyrus. First of all, both leaders are interested in the provisions and armament of their soldiers. Polybius notes: not only did he (sc. Hannibal) furnish the army with plenty of corn and other provisions (τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐπιτηδείοις), but he replaced all their old and worn weapons by new ones, thus freshening up the whole force very opportunely.36 Similarly, Cyrus constantly shows concern about the provisions of his soldiers and also takes the bold initiative to create new arms for the Persian commoners (Xen. Cyr. 2.1.9; cf. Xen. Cyr. 4.5.58). Caring for provisions is, according to Cambyses’ advice, the most significant means of securing the perpetual goodwill of a leader’s subordinates (Xen. Cyr. 4.5.57–58; cf. Xen. Cyr. 1.6.9: “if your army does not receive its provisions, your authority will collapse”). The frequent use of the word τὰ ἐπιτήδεια both in Polybius’ Histories and in the Cyropaedia is important in these contexts.37 The two leaders also exploit captured arms. Polybius notes that when Hannibal encamped near the Adriatic with a large booty, “he re-armed the Africans in the Roman fashion with select weapons, being, as he now was, in possession of a very large quantity of captured arms”.38 Similarly, Xenophon mentions that Cyrus, after his conquest of the Phrygians, the Cappadocians and the Arabians, “secured armor for not less than forty thousand Persian horsemen” (Xen. Cyr. 7.4.16). �� 36 Plb. 3.49.11. 37 Cf. Xen. Ages. 2.8: Agesilaus’ concern about his soldiers. 38 Plb. 3.87.3–4. ��� � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki Furthermore, both leaders are depicted as ready to make good use of the high morale of their soldiers and lead them to battle. Polybius states: “Hannibal was anxious to force a battle on the enemy, wishing in the first place to avail himself of the enthusiasm of the Celts while still fresh”.39 Xenophon also notes that Cyrus decides to attack the enemy, as soon as he realizes that his soldiers are in good physical and psychological condition (Xen. Cyr. 3.3.9).40 Both leaders also reward their soldiers according to merit in order to make them fight more bravely (Plb. 3.17.10, Xen. Cyr. 2.2.20; cf. Xen. Ages. 2.8). Finally, we note a similarity in the vocabulary used by the two historians regarding the disposal of the plunder. Polybius notes that the plunder helped Hannibal to accomplish many things which were of service to him, while Xenophon presents Cyrus as stating that the plunder will always be at the service of anyone who needs it (note the words χρησίμων and χρήσεται in the two passages below): by setting aside these funds, he (sc. Hannibal) was able to accomplish many things of much service to him (αὐτός τε πολλὰ τῶν χρησίμων μετὰ ταῦτα κατειργάσατο διὰ τῆς τῶν χορηγιῶν παραθέσεως).41 καὶ ὅσα δὲ ἐμοὶ δίδοτε, ἡδέως, ἔφη, δέχομαι· χρήσεται δ’ αὐτοῖς ὑμῶν ὁ ἀεὶ μάλιστα δεόμενος (“I accept with pleasure what you are giving me”, he said. “Whoever among you is especially in want of them may use them”).42 � Character Hannibal and Cyrus share some common features with regards to their character as well. First of all, they are both presented as being carried away by juvenile enthusiasm. On the one hand, Polybius notes that Hannibal, at a very young age, was full of martial ardor and was greatly motivated by his hatred against the Romans: Hannibal, being young, full of martial ardour, encouraged by the success of his enterprises, and spurred on by his long-standing enmity to Rome (ὁ δ’ Ἀννίβας, ἅτε νέος μὲν ὤν, πλήρης �� 39 Plb. 3.70.9–10. 40 Cf. Xen. Anab. 1.7.8: Cyrus the Younger is also capable of raising the morale of his soldiers. 41 Plb. 3.17.11 42 Xen. Cyr. 5.1.1. Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � 237 δὲ πολεμικῆς ὁρμῆς, ἐπιτυχὴς δ’ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιβολαῖς, πάλαι δὲ παρωρμημένος πρὸς τὴν κατὰ Ῥωμαίων ἔχθραν …).43 Xenophon also describes Cyrus’ enthusiasm in the Cyropaedia during his childhood in a boar-hunting scene: But when he perceived a shout, he leaped up on his horse as would one possessed; and when he saw a boar bearing down upon them, he rushed straight toward it, poised [his spear], and with a good aim struck the boar in the forehead and brought it down (ὁ οὖν Κῦρος … ὡς δ’ ᾔσθετο κραυγῆς, ἀνεπήδησεν ἐπὶ τὸν ἵππον ὥσπερ ἐνθουσιῶν, καὶ ὡς εἶδεν ἐκ τοῦ ἀντίου κάπρον προσφερόμενον, ἀντίος ἐλαύνει καὶ διατεινάμενος εὐστόχως βάλλει εἰς τὸ μέτωπον καὶ κατέσχε τὸν κάπρον).44 Furthermore, both leaders are pious: in his speech in front of his soldiers Hannibal states that they should be thankful to the gods, because the gods help them attain victory over the enemies (Plb. 3.111.3–4). Similarly, Cyrus is presented as very pious throughout the Cyropaedia, making sacrifices to the gods, paying attention to omens, and often requesting the help of Zeus (Xen. Cyr. 7.1.11).45 Another common feature of the two leaders is their great concern about their soldiers. For instance, they take care of their soldiers and horses. Polybius notes: He (sc. Hannibal) now encamped near the Adriatic in a country abounding in all kinds of produce, and paid great attention to recruiting the health of his men as well as of his horses by proper treatment (ἐν ᾧ καιρῷ καταστρατοπεδεύσας παρὰ τὸν Ἀδρίαν ἐν χώρᾳ πρὸς πάντα τὰ γεννήματα διαφερούσῃ μεγάλην ἐποιεῖτο σπουδὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀναλήψεως καὶ θεραπείας τῶν ἀνδρῶν, οὐχ ἧττον δὲ καὶ τῶν ἵππων).46 Similarly, Cyrus states that he will take care of the health of his soldiers (Xen. Cyr. 1.6.15) and also shows concern about men and horses: ἔχειν δὲ χρὴ καὶ ἱμάντας· τὰ γὰρ πλεῖστα καὶ ἀνθρώποις καὶ ἵπποις ἱμᾶσιν ἤρτηται (We must also have straps, for most things, for both human beings and horses, are attached with straps).47 �� 43 Plb. 3.15.6–7. 44 Xen. Cyr. 1.4.8. Cyrus the Younger is also depicted as “most fond of hunting” (φιλοθηρότατος) and “prone to danger when hunting wild animals” (φιλοκινδυνότατος). 45 Piety is an important quality of leaders in Xenophon (see also Xen. Ages. 1.13). See Flower 2016. 46 Plb. 3.87.1–2. 47 Xen. Cyr. 6.2.32. ��� � Maria Seretaki and Melina Tamiolaki Furthermore, both Hannibal and Cyrus the Great confer honor on people who have offered services to them. F. Walbank notes the use of the verb τιμάω (honor) in Polybius and Xenophon’s Cyropaedia (Plb. 3.69.4; Xen. Cyr. 3.3.6). Both leaders also constitute models for imitation for their followers. Polybius observes about Hannibal: “he was now setting an example to the soldiers by sharing personally the fatigue of the battering operations, now cheering on the troops and exposing himself recklessly to dangers”.48 Similarly, Cambyses advises Cyrus as follows: “I think that the leader ought to surpass those under his rule not in self-indulgence, but in taking forethought and willingly undergoing toil … And in his campaigns also, if they fall in the summer time, the general must show that he can endure the heat of the sun better than his soldiers can, and that he can endure cold better than they if it be in winter; if the way lead through difficulties, that he can endure hardships better”.49 Cyrus follows his father’s advice since he sets himself as a paradigm of self-restraint and moderation (Xen. Cyr. 8.1.37, 39: παράδειγμα μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτον ἑαυτὸν παρείχετο). Both leaders also place great importance on discipline. Hannibal encourages his soldiers as follows: “He begged them therefore to be at their ease about details, but to obey orders and behave like brave men and in a manner worthy of their own record in the past”.50 Cyrus gives a similar advice to his soldiers: “to be brave men, knowing that obedience, perseverance, and the endurance of toil and danger at the critical time bring the great pleasures and the great blessings”.51 Finally, although both Hannibal and Cyrus the Great are generally depicted as brave, Polybius and Xenophon demonstrate instances of their weakness as well: for example, the troops of Hannibal are presented as afraid of the Roman legions and that is why they decide to bring the battle to a close (Plb. 3.105.7). Similarly, Cyrus is afraid of the large numbers of the Assyrians and orders the retreat of his men (Xen. Cyr. 3.3.69–70). � Conclusion Scholars have already noted some parallels between Polybius’ Histories and Xenophon’s works. Our investigation expands this research by focusing on the third �� 48 Plb. 3.17.18–19. 49 Xen. Cyr. 1.6.8, 1.6.25. 50 Plb. 3.44.12–13. 51 Xen. Cyr. 3.3.8. Polybius and Xenophon: Hannibal and Cyrus the Great as Model Leaders � ��� book of Polybius’ Histories and by offering a comparison with Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. The focus on Hannibal and the detailed analysis of his plans, strategic qualities, and character strongly evoke Xenophon’s treatment of Cyrus in the Cyropaedia. In our opinion, the accumulation of common themes and linguistic parallels regarding the two leaders renders plausible the hypothesis that a possible source of influence for Polybius’ representation of Hannibal could have been Cyrus the Great, the hero of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Ιt is further hoped that this study will encourage more scholars to undertake a systematic comparison between Polybius and Xenophon on other aspects of their works as well. Bibliography Ambler, W. (2001), Xenophon. The Education of Cyrus, Ithaca/London. Anderson, J.K. (1974), Xenophon, New York. Délébecque, É. (1957), Essai sur la vie de Xénophon, Paris. Flower, M. (2016), “Piety in Xenophon’s Theory of Leadership”, in: R. Buxton (ed.) Aspects of Leadership in Xenophon, Histos Suppl. 5, 85–119. Gera, D.L. (1993), Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Style, Genre, and Literary Technique, Oxford. Gibson, B. (2013), “Polybius and Xenophon: The Mercenary War”, in: B. Gibson/T. Harrison (eds.), Polybius and his World. Essays in Memory of F.W. Walbank, Oxford, 159–179. Gray, V. (2011), Xenophon’s Mirror of Princes. Reading the Reflections, Oxford. Haegg, T. (2012), The Art of Biography in Antiquity, Cambridge. McGing, B. (2010), Polybius’ Histories, Oxford. Miller, W. (1994), Xenophon. Cyropaedia, 2 Vols., Cambridge, Mass. (1st edn 1914). Miltsios, N. (2013a), The Shaping of Narrative in Polybius, Berlin. —— (2013b), “The Narrative Legacy of Thucydides: Polybius, Book I”, in: A. Tsakmakis/M. Tamiolaki (eds.), Thucydides Between History and Literature, Berlin/Boston, 329–349. Momigliano, A. (1993), The Development of Greek Biography, Cambridge, Mass. Noël, M.-P. (2006), “Symposion, philanthropia et empire dans la Cyropédie de Xénophon”, in: P. Brillet-Dubois (ed.), Philologia: Mélanges offerts à M. Casevitz, Lyon, 133–146. Paton, W.R. (2001), Polybius. The Histories, Vol. II, Cambridge, Mass. (1st edn 1922). Rood, T. (2012), “Polybius, Thucydides, and the First Punic War”, in: C. Smith/L.M. Yarrow (eds.), Imperialism, Cultural Politics, and Polybius, Oxford, 50–67. Sandridge, N. (2012), Loving Humanity, Learning and Being Honored. The Foundations of Leadership in Xenophon’s Education of Cyrus, Washington, DC. Tamiolaki, M. (2016), “Emotion and Persuasion in Xenophon’s Cyropaedia”, Phoenix 70, 40– 63. —— (2017), “Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. Tentative Answers to an Enigma”, in: M. Flower (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Xenophon, Cambridge, 174–194. Tatum, J. (1989), Xenophon’s Imperial Fiction, Princeton. Walbank, F.W. (1957), A Historical Commentary on Polybius, Vol. 1 (Commentary on Books I-VI), Oxford. —— (1972), Polybius, Berkeley.