Welcome to The Deep Dive, the show where we take
a monumental figure from history, science, or
culture, snack up all the sources, and give you
the comprehensive, yet highly digestible, shortcut
to knowing everything that matters. Today we
are opening the file on a man whose very identity
has kept classicists arguing for over two millennia.
Xenophon of Athens. Right. And it's the ultimate
case of ancient multiplicity, isn't it? Xenophon,
born around 430 B .C., he really did live several
lives at once. He absolutely did. Was he primarily
a soldier, a tactician whose operational genius,
you know, foreshadowed Alexander the Great? Or
was he a serious historian picking up the pen
directly where the famously unfinished work of
Thucydides just stops? And this is the big one
for a lot of history. Was he the dedicated philosopher,
the essential second witness? who preserved the
moral teachings of Socrates. And that question
is so wonderfully loaded because the consensus
has, well, it's shifted over the centuries. For
a huge chunk of history, Xenophon was recognized
not as a military leader, but primarily as a
philosopher. Yeah, you have writers like Quintilian
in his Guide to the Orators education, who certainly
knew about the military campaigns and all the
histories. But he firmly placed Xenophon right
next to Plato as a philosophical source. Exactly.
He was the one who recorded the practical, the
ethical Socrates. And this enduring legacy is
due not only to what he wrote, but I mean, how
he wrote it. Oh, absolutely. He wrote in this
wonderfully clear, unadorned Attic Greek. It
was so elegant, so accessible that later generations
like. Diogenes Laertius, they honored him with
his title, the Attic Muse, for the sheer sweetness
of his diction. So if you were a student back
in antiquity learning the language, Xenophon
was basically your textbook. He was your first
read, yeah. And that remarkable clarity makes
his work universally accessible, but also, as
we're about to see, a little deceptive in its
simplicity. That's a great point. He wrote the
history of his time, but he did so as a deeply
engaged. and let's be honest, often biased participant.
He gives us the view from the inside. The view
from the inside, whether that inside is the collapsing
democracy of Athens, the widget oligarchy of
Sparta, or the desperate command structure of
a mercenary army marching across the Persian
heartland. So our mission today is to truly unpack
this tripod of identities. We need to examine
the general who revolutionized the system of
military retreat. the historian who chronicled
the downfall of Athens and the rise of Sparta,
and of course the profound political philosopher
who used fictionalized biography to offer a subtle,
devastating critique of empire and unchecked
power. We're going to see Xenophon as the disillusioned
Athenian who sought stability elsewhere. And
ultimately found flaws everywhere. Okay, let's
unpack the setting for this extraordinary life.
Xenophon was born around 430 B .C. into the Athenian
aristocracy. His father was Gryllus. Right. And
this means his entire youth, his formative years,
were utterly dominated by this massive, destructive
27 -year war between Athens and Sparta, the Peloponnesian
War. It wasn't just a political backdrop for
him. No, not at all. It was the air he breathed.
He's born into one of the wealthiest families
in the Demoverchia, and he grows up watching
Athenian democracy in its greatest expansion
and its greatest folly just self -destruct. And
the sources make it pretty clear that he wasn't
just a spectator. No, he lived through and often
participated in the immense political turbulence
of that era. And what turbulence it was. I mean,
think about the rapid -fire disasters and reversals
he saw firsthand before he was even 30. It's
staggering. He witnesses the spectacular, if
brief, return of Alcibiades in 407 B .C., which
must have felt like this massive moment of hope
for some people. But then almost immediately,
the catastrophic naval battle at Argenusae. Followed
by the terrible and, frankly, illegal trial of
the generals in 406 B .C., which alienated basically
the entire Athenian elite. That trial was a huge
turning point, wasn't it? It was a watershed
moment. It signaled that the Democratic Assembly
could be driven by mass hysteria and political
manipulation, essentially sacrificing its own
successful generals to scapegoat for poor management.
So for a young guy with aristocratic sensibilities
like Xenophon. It confirmed everything. The inherent
instability and injustice of radical democracy.
And the climax of this political whiplash, of
course, is the total defeat of Athens in 404
BC, followed by the installation of that brutal
oligarchic regime, the Thirty Tyrants. And here's
where we get concrete evidence of Xenophon's
political leanings. The sources indicate that
during the civil war that followed, when the
democratic insurgents rallied against the Thirty
Xenophon, actively fought on the side of the
oligarchy. Wow. So that's a critical detail.
He wasn't just some moderate. He actively opposed
the restoration of the democracy that defined
his birthplace. He did. And that association
with the losing anti -democratic faction is really
the first key to understanding his eventual alienation
and his exile. But even as all this political
drama was unfolding, he was developing intellectually,
as was standard for young men of his class. Right.
And this is where his life changes forever. the
connection to Socrates. This is the defining
personal relationship of his life. And we have
this perfect little story about how it began,
thanks to Diogenes Laertius. It's a great story.
It's a moment of physical interruption by the
great philosopher. The famous anecdote. So Xenophon
is walking through the city, probably preoccupied
with aristocratic matters. And Socrates literally
stops him, using his walking stick to block the
narrow path. And he asked him this really simple
question, forcing Xenophon to stop and engage.
Where are necessary things sold? And Xenophon
answers right. He lists the markets, the places
of commerce. And then Socrates asks the profound
question, where are men made good and virtuous?
And when Xenophon honestly has to admit that
he doesn't know the answer. Socrates delivers
the invitation to change history. Follow me then
and learn. It's so immediate, so compelling,
and it beautifully encapsulates the difference
between the two primary Socratic witnesses. Absolutely.
While Plato was drawn to the grand metaphysics,
the forms, the abstract ideals. Xenophon captured
Socrates, the moralist, the ethical guide, the
man who was fundamentally concerned with making
men good through practical discipline and inquiry.
And this philosophical education only heightened
Xenophon's existing aristocratic and anti -democratic
biases. Of course. The Athenian elite often viewed
the chaos of democracy as a failure of virtue.
And their teacher, Socrates, was eventually executed
by that same democracy. For Xenophon, the institutions
of Athens had failed both politically and morally.
Which brings us to the ultimate inescapable paradox
of his life. the Spartan paradox. You have this
Athenian aristocrat philosophically educated
in the greatest city -state who becomes the primary
ally and chronicler of Sparta, Athens' mortal
enemy, and the very power that crushed Athenian
freedom. And the sources confirm this was more
than just political convenience. It was intellectual
admiration. Xenophon was looking for stability.
He saw the corruption and volatility of Athens,
and he contrasted it with the perceived order
and severe discipline of the Lacedaemonian system.
And this is our tremendous stroke of luck as
historic beneficiaries. It is. Much of what we
know about classical Spartan society, its unique
institutions, its training systems, its kings,
it comes directly from the writings of an Athenian
expatriate who had an outsider's critical eye,
but an insider's access. His treatise, Constitution
of the Lacedaemonians, is probably the most critical
text on Spartan life. It is. And it opens with
that telling sentiment where he states he initially
wondered why Sparta though among the most thinly
populated of states, was evidently the most powerful
and most celebrated city in Greece. The key phrase
being, But when I considered the institutions
of the Spartans, I wondered no longer. He was
fascinated by their success, determined to sort
of reverse engineer the political technology
that created it. And his biography of King Aegisalus
II further cements his loyalty, painting the
Spartan king as this ideal leader. Right. This
intellectual and military allegiance eventually
led to his permanent exile. But before that,
Xenophon embarked on a military adventure that
would transform him from Socrates' student into
one of the most celebrated battlefield commanders
of the ancient world. And he had to cross an
entire continent to earn that military reputation.
An entire continent. Okay, here's where the story
takes that sharp turn east. A story that defines
the military side of his legacy. It's 401 BC.
And Xenophon's friend, Proxenus of Boeotia, a
captain leading Greek mercenaries, invites him
to sail to Ephesus. But this wasn't really meant
to be a military career move for Xenophon, was
it? Not at all. He goes simply as a friend and
advisor to Proxenus. He actually claims in his
account, the Anabasis, that Socrates was wary
of the trip and advised him to consult the oracle
at Delphi. Right, but Xenophon, being eager to
go, he only asked the Oracle which gods he should
sacrifice to for a successful journey. Not whether
he should go. Socrates later, you know, chastised
him for predetermining the outcome. So he's already
acting like a man who knows what he wants despite
his philosophical training. And the political
deception surrounding this expedition is just,
it's magnificent. It is. The stated reason for
the whole thing was fighting Tissaphernes, a
regional Persian satrap who was being a nuisance.
So the Greek mercenaries, the 10 ,000, they thought
they were hired for a local skirmish in Ionia.
Exactly. Xenophon and the whole army were thoroughly
misled. They were marching thousands of miles
inland all the way to Tarsus before the real
goal was revealed. Which was not a border skirmish.
It was a massive civil war. A civil war? Correct.
Cyrus the Younger, the prince they were fighting
for, intended to depose his older brother, King
Artaxerxes II, the great king of the Achaemenid
Empire. And this revelation caused immediate
panic. Total panic and refusal among the troops,
who realized they were now thousands of miles
deep in hostile territory, marching to face the
full might of the Persian crown. It's the ultimate
bait and switch, and the whole enterprise culminates
at the Battle of Cunexa in 401 BC. The battle
itself was a tactical draw, but a strategic disaster.
The Greek phalanx won decisively against the
Persian left flank. But Cyrus, in a reckless
act, charged directly at his brother the king.
And was killed. He was killed. And with Cyrus
dead, the goal of the campaign just vanishes.
Instantly. The 10 ,000 had won the battle but
lost the war. And then comes the act of treachery
that turns the entire story into a desperate
survival epic. It's perhaps the most infamous
betrayal in ancient history. The Greek generals,
including Xenophon's friend Proxinus and the
Spartan general Clericus, were invited by Tissafernes,
who pretended to negotiate a peaceful passage.
home to a feast. And they were captured and promptly
executed. Leaving the 10 ,000 leaderless, stranded
near Mesopotamia, and surrounded by overwhelming
enemy forces who were now actively pursuing them.
And this is the moment, this is where the philosopher
becomes the general, in this desperate chaos,
who organizes the new command structure. Xenophon
is elected as one of the new leaders. Suddenly,
the Athenian intellectual who barely knew why
he had sailed to Ephesus is now responsible for
navigating 10 ,000 highly trained but terrified
Greek soldiers on a 1 ,500 -mile march through
enemy territory back toward the Black Sea. And
this journey is the subject of his memoir, Anabasis,
The Going Up. Yes. And the brilliance isn't just
surviving. It's how they survived. This retreat
is considered a revolution in tactical warfare.
The military historian Theodore Erol Dodge didn't
mince words. He called Xenophon the father of
the system of retreat. He did. Dodge argued that
the genius displayed by Xenophon in organizing
this long retreat was never truly surpassed.
And the sources show that Xenophon was forced
to innovate immediately, adapting on the fly
to Persian tactics. So what was his first immediate
problem? The harassing Persian missile cavalry.
They're constantly peppering the Greek flanks
and rear, taking advantage of the Greek hoplite's
lack of light missile -capable protection. So
what's his solution? It was immediate and decisive.
He reorganized the existing remaining troops.
The sources indicate he formed a dedicated mobile
body of archers and light cavalry. Critically,
these were not just gathered. They were organized
as a new tactical counterforce. And it worked.
The very next day. When the Persian cavalry approached,
Xenophon unleashed this specialized force and
they successfully routed the Persians. It was
the first instance of a Greek general establishing
an effective standing counter to enemy light
forces. It's astonishing how quickly he applied
practical solutions. He didn't just stop there,
though. He redefined the internal structure of
the fighting force. Yeah. Within the main phalanx
formation, the heavy infantry Xenophon is credited
as the first to establish a dedicated tactical
reserve. A reserve force. What does that mean
in this context? This force was placed in the
rear of the main line, and its entire purpose
was not to march or fight routinely, but to be
ready, mobilized, and instantly deployable to
reinforce any weak parts of the line that started
to buckle under enemy pressure. For an audience
today, a tactical reserve is fundamental military
doctrine. But in ancient warfare, where the phalanx
was often just a solid block of men, this concept
of a flexible, mobile reserve was truly revolutionary.
It injected elasticity into a rigid structure.
And then there was the necessity of surviving
relentless pursuit, which forced him into the
most brutal of innovations. The scorched earth
policy. Dodge, again, noted that this was the
first time a general had systematically used
the devastation of the countryside, destroying
villages and crops, to deprive a pursuing enemy
of food and shelter, thereby stopping their advance.
It's ruthless, but absolutely essential when
you are the moving target and have no supply
train. It's the cost of survival. And the necessity
of innovation even extended to engineering. They
were pursued and faced the massive obstacle of
the Great Zab River. and the sources revealed
the desperate measures they considered. Tell
us again about that bizarre, discarded plan to
cross the river. A man proposed they slaughter
every animal they had, all the cows, goats, sheep,
and donkeys, stuff the carcasses with hay, sew
them up, and attempt to lay them across the river,
covering them with dirt to make a floating bridge.
A bridge made of dead animals. Seriously. The
audacity of the improvisation is incredible.
It just speaks volumes about their situation.
They were truly operating on the razor's edge.
Thankfully, they managed to discard that plan
as impractical and eventually found a better
way across. The physical journey itself reads
like something out of high fantasy, particularly
their passage through the mountainous territory
of the Cardusians in modern southeastern Turkey.
This was historically known as death trap territory.
The sources emphasize the historical warning.
The great king himself had once sent an army
of 120 ,000 men into that area to subdue the
Cardusians. And not a single soldier ever returned
home. Not one. So for Xenophon's depleted 10
,000, numbering maybe 10 ,000 fighting men, this
was the moment of truth. So how does he navigate
this impossible terrain against a hostile, fierce,
and historically undefeated mountain tribe? With
classic maneuver warfare. It's operational genius.
The main Carduchian force was positioned perfectly,
blocking the major pass. So Xenophon ordered
the vast majority of his army, 8 ,000 men, to
conduct a visible, loud feint at the main defile,
keeping the enemy pinned. Right. And meanwhile,
using intelligence from a captured prisoner,
he took a smaller force of 2 ,000 men and, under
the cover of a rainstorm, marched them to a secret,
unguarded pass. He is using deception, intelligence,
and even the weather to create a decisive advantage.
By daylight, the smaller force was positioned
to flank the main Carduchian host, forcing them
to divide their defenses and exposing their weak
points. Xenophon achieved what 120 ,000 men couldn't.
He successfully passed through the Cardusian
lands through mobility and surprise, with minimal
losses. Eventually, after navigating more hostile
forces and enduring an absolutely brutal winter
march through Armenia, where the sources describe
them being totally unprepared with clothing,
they reached the coast. And we get that eternal
moment of relief. Their arrival at Trapezis on
the Black Sea coast. The famous shout, Thalata.
The latter. The sea. The sea. A moment of pure,
collective, desperate joy. Knowing they were
finally back in sight of Greek trade routes.
But even standing by the sea, they weren't done.
They had one final major battle against the Colchians.
And this final engagement gave Xenophon one last
chance to showcase his mastery of deployment.
He observed the Colchians attempting to overlap
his lines. which was a standard tactic for numerically
superior forces. So Xenophon decided to proactively
counteract this by deploying his own hoplite
line, extremely thin. So thin, in fact, that
it overlapped the enemy's flanks. That seems
incredibly risky, thinning your line on purpose.
It was a calculated risk. By forcing the enemy
to spread their army to cover the overlap, Xenophon
deliberately engineered a weakness in the Colchian
center. He then rushed his tactical reserves
into that newly created gap. shattering the enemy
formation. It was a textbook application of using
geometry and maneuver to defeat a more numerous
opponent. The entire retreat captured in Anabasis
is more than a memoir. It's truly a foundational
document in military history. So what's the ultimate
legacy of this experience? Its greatest legacy
is the operational template it provided. It proved
definitively that highly trained, motivated Greek
heavy infantry could penetrate deep into the
seemingly limitless Achaemenid Empire. and not
only survive, but conquer their way out. And
the sources confirm that Xenophon's Anabasis
became essential reading. It was used as a field
guide by Alexander the Great during the early
phases of his own expedition into Persia just
over 60 years later. Xenophon mapped the route
and provided the tactical blueprints for the
greatest conqueror of the ancient world. The
military adventure ends, but the story of the
man continues. Xenophon and the remaining 10
,000 eventually make their way back to Greek
lands, but they are still battle -hardened mercenaries.
Right. They help local rulers, including Suthes
II in Thrace, before ultimately committing themselves
to Sparta, joining the Spartan general Thimbron
in Pergamon around 399 BC. And this is the critical
period where his alliance with Sparta becomes
formal and permanent, providing him with the
stability and material necessary to start writing
his histories. This decision leads directly to
the creation of his major historical work, Hellenica.
I think many people know him as the one who picked
up the pen after Thucydides, right? Where exactly
does the Hellenica begin and end? And what does
it tell us about his perspective? The Hellenica
starts with a really striking sentence, designed
for seamless continuity. It begins directly after
the final incomplete sentence of Thucydides'
history of the Peloponnesian War. So Thucydides'
account ends abruptly around 411 BC. And Xenophon
picks up the narrative. covering the last seven
years of the war for 11404 BC, and then chronicles
the subsequent four decades of Spartan supremacy,
concluding in 362 BC. So he provides the full
history of his native city's defeat and the ensuing
40 years of Greek turmoil. But the nature of
his historical work is very different from Thucydides,
isn't it? Oh, fundamentally so. Thucydides was
the scientific historian concerned with causation,
separating myth from fact, aiming for objective
political analysis. And Xenophon is what? a narrative
historian. Exactly. He's focused on action, character,
and moral lessons, and he is also transparently
biased. Bias is inevitable, I suppose. But Xenophon
was writing from a deeply personal place, often
defending the actions of the Spartans or the
generals he admired, like Agesilaus. Absolutely.
The Hellenica is often criticized for its pro
-Spartan tilt, or for omitting events that might
embarrass Sparta or his allies. However, its
value is immense because it covers a period that
would otherwise be nearly blank. He gives us
the detailed political maneuvering during the
rise and fall of Spartan supremacy. And he also
continued his service in the field, even as he
was likely compiling these notes. After Thimbron
failed to capture Larissa, the Spartans replaced
him with Drusillidas. And Xenophon serves brilliantly
under Drusillidas. This command change led to
a highly successful campaign where Xenophon and
the army captured nine cities in Aeolus in a
period of only eight days. Nine cities in eight
days. That astounding tempo speaks to the quality
of the Greek forces, but also to Ducilidus' effective
command. It does. And this success leads to the
Spartan effers finally clearing the 10 ,000 of
any previous wrongdoing, essentially legitimizing
their mercenary status and incorporating them
fully into the Spartan war machine. And there
is that great anecdote about the shift in performance.
It's a perfect commentary on leadership. The
commander of the 10 ,000, whether it was Xenophon
or one of his peers, addressed the Spartan authorities,
explaining the difference between the failure
under Thimbron and the success under Dursilidus.
Right, he said. We are the same men now as we
were last year, but the commander now is one
man, Dursilidus, and in the past was another,
Thimbron. And he concludes, Therefore, you are
at once able to judge for yourselves the reason
why we are not at fault now, although we were
then. It's a concise thesis statement on the
primacy of leadership. The quality of the troops
is secondary to the quality of the general. This
must have reinforced Xenophon's burgeoning political
philosophy about the ideal ruler. It certainly
did. This period led to his most loyal service.
And he served under Aegiseles from 396 to 394
BC, traveling back with him to mainland Greece
for the pivotal conflict with Athens and Thebes.
This was the decision that sealed his fate. He
fought on the Spartan side against his native
city in the Battle of Coronea in 394 BC. The
final unforgivable act. Athens formally banished
him for treasonously fighting against them. Xenophon
was now permanently in exile. a man without a
city, having chosen Spartan order over Athenian
democracy. But his exile was comfortable, at
least initially. He follows Aegislus' march back
to the Peloponnese and is granted an estate in
Silis, near the sacred site of Olympia. And this
is a 23 -year period in enforced leisure. And
it's arguably the most productive time of his
life as a writer. This is where he writes The
Polity of the Lacedaemonians, his royal biography
Aegislus, and all his highly practical philosophical
and political works. He spends this time raising
his family, hunting, Writing, he transforms from
the active soldier into the reflective political
theorist. But even this peaceful period is interrupted
by the volatile shifts of Greek power. The shifting
sands of power indeed. In 371 BC, Sparta suffers
a decisive defeat against Thebes at the Battle
of Lutra. Spartan power collapses. And the Aelians,
sensing weakness in the region, confiscate Xenophon's
estate at Silas. He loses his home and his land.
The second exile, a quieter disaster. According
to Diogenes Laertius, Xenophon moves to Corinth,
where he spends his final years, likely dying
there around 355 or 354 BC, having witnessed
the complete rise and fall of the powers he served
and admired. Athens, Sparta, and Cyrus' empire.
His incredible trajectory speaks to a man seeking
political stability and ethical guidance in a
world defined by constant turmoil. Precisely.
So now we grapple with the Xenophon who has moved
beyond history and memoir and into deep political
theory. This takes us to the Syropedia, the education
of Cyrus. It's arguably his most ambitious and
complex work, frequently cited as the conceptual
architect for the European Mirror of Princes
genre text, designed to provide a moral and practical
education for future rulers. It's basically political
fiction disguised as history. That's a great
way to put it. He takes Cyrus the Great, the
actual founder of the first Persian empire, and
creates an idealized composite figure. This Cyrus
is lofty. temperate, wise, educated, and essentially
free of the typical corruption and petty jealousies
that plague human leaders. He's outlining the
perfect autocrat. He is. But the very act of
creating an ideal ruler requires Xenophon to
take historical liberties. And this is where
the debate surrounding his political intent really
begins, particularly concerning his divergence
from Herodotus' historical account. Okay, so
give us the specifics on that historical contradiction,
particularly concerning the Medes and the Persians.
Herodotus, the early Hearst historian, had established
the generally accepted narrative. Cyrus the Great
rebelled against his maternal grandfather, Astyages,
who was the king of Media. Cyrus won, and the
Medes were consequently conquered and became
slaves to the Persians. So a brutal, conquering
empire. Exactly. But Xenophon, writing decades
later, offers a dramatically different narrative
in Syropaedia. In his version, Astyages dies
and is succeeded by Cyaxares II. Cyrus' maternal
uncle. And crucially, Xenophon presents the Medes
as still being a major, powerful, independent
kingdom led by Cyaxares. Right, with Cyrus leading
the Persians as a crucial, but junior, partner.
They form an alliance to fight the Babylonians,
which suggests partnership. not conquest so why
bother changing that detail if he's writing historical
fiction to praise a leader why disrupt the accepted
history of conquest because xenophon is setting
the stage for a subtle internal critique he wants
the persian empire to appear founded on alliance
and consent which allows him to analyze how even
a consent -based brilliantly led empire fails.
But what's fascinating is that external evidence,
unearthed much later, suggests Xenophon's version
of the Medes' power might not be entirely fictional.
You're referring to the Heron Steel. Yes. This
Babylonian document dating to around 540 BC mentions
the kings of the Medes as major enemies of Nabonidus,
the Babylonian king. And the critical part is
that this reference suggests the Medes were still
functioning as a major independent power just
before Babylon fell. They weren't slaves of the
Persians for two decades, as Herodotus claimed.
It suggests Xenophon might have been working
from a different, perhaps Babylonian or Median,
source that viewed the two powers as more equal
partners in the conquest of Babylon. Regardless
of the historical accuracy, though, it allows
Xenophon to build the foundation for his real
argument. Which is... If the empire is founded
on virtue and partnership, yet still collapses,
the problem must lie with the concept of empire
itself. And that's the key scholarly interpretation,
right? Championed by Leo Strauss and later David
Johnson. They argue Xenophon uses this lavish
praise of Cyrus to hide a profound critique of
the very idea of expansive dominion. A critique
aimed at the ambitions of Athens, Sparta, and
Persia alike. But wait, if he's praising Cyrus
so lavishly throughout the entire work, how can
we be sure he isn't just offering genuine, sincere
leadership advice? Isn't that critique interpretation
reliant on reading between the lines a little
too much? It is reliant on reading between the
lines, but the textual clues are highly specific
and highly symbolic. Take the symbolism that
Johnson identifies in a specific passage where
Cyrus institutionalizes cavalry. Right. Cyrus
states he wants every noble Persian to be seen
only on horseback, never on foot, so that the
composite image is always that of a centaur.
A centaur. A mythological figure that embodies
the unstable dichotomy of man and beast. Xenophon,
the ultimate Athenian intellectual, is choosing
an image that was used in post -Persian war Greek
propaganda, the Centauromachy, to symbolize conflict
and instability. So he's saying this empire looks
glorious, but its foundation is fundamentally
unstable and hybrid. That's the argument. The
centaur symbolizes the volatile alliance of the
Persians and the Medes, held together only by
Cyrus's singular, overwhelming personality. By
showing the empire's swift decline immediately
after Cyrus's death, a historical fact Xenophon
himself admits, he demonstrates that empires
inherently lack stability. They rely entirely
on a single person of remarkable prowess. The
implicit critique is devastating. If even the
ideal leader cannot create a lasting, stable
institution, then perhaps the institution itself
is flawed. It's a warning against imperial ambition,
regardless of whether that ambition is democratic,
like Athens, or oligarchic, like Sparta. And
the critique goes even deeper, targeting the
corruption of the elite under imperial rule,
which relates to the transition from homo temoi
to ontemoi. Okay, break that down for us. What
does it actually mean? Homo temoi literally means
peers or equal honors. These were the original
elite heavy infantry of the Persians, educated
and rigorously trained, who initially shared
the spoils of war equally based on their status.
They were the educated meritocratic core. But
as Cyrus expanded and faced overwhelming numbers,
he had to arm the commoners with the same heavy
infantry gear, which essentially leveled the
military playing field. Exactly. This immediately
sparked an argument over how to split the spoils.
And Cyrus, wanting to reward bravery, enforced
a strict meritocracy based purely on battlefield
performance. Which sounds fair on the surface
rewarding skill. But Xenophon suggests it actually
causes the system to rot. How? Because the Homo
Tomoi realized that their specialized military
training was no longer the sole advantage, their
difference now lay primarily in their education
and status. When meritocracy became purely performance
-based, they lost their status advantage. So
they realized that the way to achieve honor,
timo, was no longer through adherence to their
educational principles. But through directly
ingratiating themselves to the emperor for positions,
honors, and rewards. So they stopped being peers
operating under a shared code and start becoming
flatterers. Precisely. They transition from homicumoi,
equal honors, to untimoi, having to begin to
get the honor. Xenophon shows how the concentration
of reward structures in the hands of the single
autocrat forces the elite to become courtiers
and sycophants rather than virtuous peers. Which
guarantees the long -term instability and corruption
of the regime. Proving that even the most benevolent
autocracy eventually leads to decay. That's a
stunning realization, especially coming from
a man who served Spartan tings and worked alongside
autocrats. Xenophon used the ideal leader to
demonstrate the inevitable failure of centralized
power. It connects right back to his life experience.
He saw Athenian democracy corrupted by mass whim,
Spartan oligarchy corrupted by hubris, and now
through Cyrus, the absolute failure of imperial
virtue to sustain itself after the death of the
singular genius. We owe Xenophon a huge debt,
not just for history, and political theory, but
for our fundamental understanding of his teacher.
If Plato's works vanished, Xenophon's Socratic
writings would be essential for us to truly comprehend
Socrates. Oh, they're absolutely foundational.
We have his primary Socratic works, the Memorabilia,
which acts as a defense of Socrates outside of
the courtroom, detailing his moral principles
and arguing he never corrupted the earth. And
the Apology, Xenophon's version of Socrates'
defense during the trial itself. And the Apology
is where we encounter one of the most intriguing
debates in classical philosophy. The stark difference
between Xenophon's and Plato's depiction of Socrates'
demeanor during the trial. This is a point that
requires careful consideration because Xenophon
wasn't actually in Athens for the trial. No,
he was already on campaign in Anatolia with Cyrus.
However, his account asserts that Socrates appeared
exceedingly arrogant in court, perhaps even actively
striving for death. Striving for death? Why would
Xenophon suggest his revered teacher was almost
challenging the jury to condemn him? Xenophon
posits that Socrates, having lived a long, morally
upright and philosophically rigorous life, felt
that death was the preferred outcome over any
form of compromise or continued existence in
a world he deemed unjust. So for Xenophon, the
defense wasn't a genuine attempt to win freedom,
but a final rhetorical demonstration. A refusal
to beg the jury and a choice to leave the world
on his own terms, preserving his intellectual
integrity. So he viewed Socrates' failure to
mount a fully convincing defense not as a tactical
error, but as a deliberate, powerful rhetorical
choice, a final, grand philosophical statement.
Precisely. Plato, who is present at the trial,
felt compelled to soften that perceived arrogance.
Plato's Socrates presents a high moral standard,
but frames it more as an inescapable consequence
of living a virtuous life rather than a willful
embrace of death. Xenophon's depiction suggests
a more dramatic, almost theatrical conclusion
designed to emphasize Socrates' absolute moral
superiority over his judges. Right. And beyond
the drama of the trial, Xenophon gives us access
to Socrates' more grounded practice. The best
example is the Economicus, which is a Socratic
dialogue that is focused entirely on practical
household management, estate finances, and the
principles of agriculture. It shows Socrates
engaging with the everyday concerns of an Athenian
gentleman, demonstrating that philosophy extended
to efficiency and good stewardship. Then there
is the Symposium, a different kind of banquet
from Plato's version. Xenophon's Symposium is
a dialogue where Socrates and his companions
discuss what attributes they take pride in. While
highly philosophical, it also contains a frank
discussion concerning the nature of loving relationships,
specifically noble versus base relationships,
which included the dynamics between a wealthy
aristocrat and a young boy present at the banquet.
It explores the moral boundaries and ethics of
desire and pride. Yes. And finally, the hero,
which must have resonated deeply with Xenophon
after his exposure to Cyrus and Ojasalais. The
hero is a fascinating discussion between Hero,
the tyrant of Syracuse, and the famous lyric
poet Simonides of Sios. And they debate the nature
of happiness, questioning whether absolute political
power, the life of the tyrant, truly leads to
happiness, or if it leads to inescapable fear,
isolation, and misery. It serves as a philosophical
justification for Xenophon's political skepticism
found in this Iropedia. It's crucial to remember
that Xenophon wrote many of these works during
his 23 years of enforced leisure and retirement
on his estate in Silas. And those years, dedicated
to the pursuits of the aristocratic country gentleman,
gave rise to his short, practical treatises.
This is Xenophon, the man of action, applying
his rigorous analytical mind to his favorite
hobbies. He compiled what we might call the ultimate
gentleman's reading list for the classical world,
starting with his passion for horses. Absolutely.
He wrote On Horsemanship, which is a detailed
manual on how to break, train, and care for horses,
a testament to his cavalry experience. And Hipparchikos,
a treatise specifically outlining the duties,
strategies, and responsibilities of a cavalry
officer. And his love of the country life is
preserved in Hunting with Dogs. The Synergeticus.
which details the proper methods and advantages
of hunting, not just as a sport, but as a moral
discipline that prepares men for war and provides
wholesome aristocratic leisure. It's a unified
worldview. a blend of Socratic discipline and
Spartan rigor applied to the practical matters
of life and warfare. Even in his final years,
after his estate was confiscated, he never stopped
trying to influence governance. He wrote Ways
and Means, a treatise discussing practical solutions
for Athens to deal with financial and economic
crises. He was trying to advise the city that
had banished him. He was a political animal to
the end. Before we conclude, we should briefly
clarify one historical misconception. The treatise
Constitution of the Athenians, which was once
attributed to him. That's the one we know was
written by the old oligarch. Modern scholarship
is certain Xenophon didn't write it primarily
because it was written when he was only about
five years old. It's an interesting counterpoint,
though. It is. That document critiques Periclean
institutions, but ironically argues they were
perfectly designed for their purpose, serving
the political and economic interests of the poorer
classes. But Xenophon was not the author of that
particular cynical early critique. So what does
this extraordinary trajectory tell us about the
man known as the Attic Muse? We have followed
him from the politically chaotic streets of Athens
to the deserts of Mesopotamia, from the fields
of Silas to the Spartan courts. He was the quintessential
utility player of antiquity. He was the military
leader who revolutionized the tactical retreat,
the philosopher who captured the moral core of
Socrates, and the historian who provided the
crucial bridge for Greek history after Thucydides.
His ability to synthesize moral philosophy with
battlefield pragmatism is truly unparalleled.
And in his political theory, he used the image
of Cyrus the Great to subtly warn us. He demonstrated
that no matter how virtuous, no matter how disciplined,
expansive empires and highly centralized power
structures are inherently unstable and prone
to corruption and decay. His ideas on leadership.
particularly those found in Syropedia linking
a strong moral code and education to effective
rule, are why he's still studied intensely today
by studies of political science and military
strategy. He forced his readers to question not
just the leader, but the system itself. He lived
through the collapse of Athens' democracy, the
failure of Spartan oligarchy, and observed firsthand
the ultimate limits of boundless expansion in
Persia. Which brings us to our final provocative
thought for you to consider as you reflect on
Xenophon's immense legacy. He was permanently
banished by his birthplace, Athens, for fighting
alongside Sparta. He spent his long life writing
about the ideal leader, Cyrus, and the ideal
state, Sparta, both of whom ultimately failed
spectacularly to maintain long -term stability.
He had detailed intimate exposure to the political
failures of every major system of governance
in the classical world democracy oligarchy and
expansive empire. So What lesson was Xenophon
really trying to teach us? Was he advocating
for one flawed system over the others? Or was
he simply concluding that political stability
is ultimately impossible without the constant,
active, and highly exceptional presence of a
single virtuous man? And if the latter is true...
If true stability is purely reliant on the unique
genius of a single irreplaceable person, what
hope do we have for designing sustainable long
-term institutions today that don't immediately
devolve into corruption and conflict when that
single genius inevitably leaves the stage? Think
about that paradox of genius versus system as
you continue your own deep dive into the histories
of the ancient world. Thanks for joining us for
the deep dive. We'll see you next time.