The General's Pre-Battle Exhortation in Graeco-Roman Warfare

THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION IN GRAECO-ROMAN WARFARE
Author(s): EDWARD ANSON

Source: Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 57, No. 2 (OCTOBER 2010), pp. 304-318
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40929481
Accessed: 28-07-2016 22:11 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome
This content downloaded from 142.58.129.109 on Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:11:55 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Greece & Rome, Vol. 57, No. 2, ©The Classical Association, 2010. All rights reserved
doi:10.1017/S0017383510000045
THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION IN

GRAECO-ROMAN WARFARE
The first-century-AD philosopher Onasander (Strategikos 1.1 3, 15)

comments that a general must be a good and effective speaker in
order to encourage his men before battle, and ancient historians on
occasion have commanders address large audiences of soldiers in an
age when there was no artificial amplification of the human voice.
In 1993, and reiterated in 1998, Mogens Hansen argued that the
extensive pre-battle 'speech' found in our sources was, if given at all,
only 'a few apophthegms that could be shouted by the general as he
traversed the line, or a speech made to the officers only who passed
it on to the soldiers'.1 He accepts that a general often addressed his
troops in camp or in parade formation; his objection solely relates to
those speeches ostensibly given immediately before battle to troops
already arrayed for combat. For Hansen, ca brief exhortation of the
troops, unit by unit, while the commander walked along the front
is probably all the historical reality [one] may expect to find behind
the fully-fledged speeches reported by the historians', these being a
'literary composition and not the historian's report of a speech which
had actually been made'. In Hanson's view, unless the harangues were
given to troops in camp, or to individual units in battle formation, or,
perhaps, to small military forces, these speeches could not have been
given as reported.2 With respect to the last possibility, Hansen only
rather reluctantly acknowledges that Thrasybulus' speech delivered to
approximately 1000 Athenian insurgents in 404 bc, and reported by
Xenophon (Hell 2.4.10-12), cis possibly right'.3
Others have suggested that speeches to relatively large numbers were
given. John Keegan, in The Mask of Command, suggests that 5000 men
1 M. H. Hansen, 'The Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography: Fact or Fiction?',

Historia 42 (1993), 179; idem, 'The Little Grey Horse: Henry V's Speech at Agincourt and the
Battle Exhortation in Ancient Historiography', Histos (1998), <http://www.dur.ac.uk/Classics/
histos/1998/hansen.html>, accessed 5 May 2010. Adrian K. Goldsworthy agrees with Hansen:
'It seems safe to conclude that the convention of giving a single speech to the whole army,
common in most histories is no more than a literary device' (The Roman Army at War 100 bc-ad
200 [Oxford, 1996], 146).
2 Hansen, 'Battle Exhortation' (n. 1), 171, 172, 169.
3 Hansen, 'Grey Horse' (n. 1).
THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION 305
arranged in ranks ten deep could be addressed effectively.4 The most

vehement criticism of Hansen comes from W. Kendrick Pritchett:
Moreover, Hansen can ignore the statements of historians, including Thucydides and
Polybios, about their claims concerning their speeches: the ancient historians have not
only invented their speeches, they have inserted them into battle field accounts at places
entirely inappropriate. Mogens Herman Hansen can be placed in the vanguard of those
who believe that our histories contain a pack of lies.5
What is apparent in our sources is that the size of the force or,
more critically, the length of the battle line limited the scope for such
activities, but did not entirely preclude them.6 If the force were small
enough and the battle line less extensive, it was probably a common
practice to address the gathered troops at some length. Even though
Xenophon in his Constitution of the Lacedaemonians (13.9) reports how,
among the Spartans, words of encouragement were passed along the
battle line, 'for it is impossible for each ivœfjLoraprjs to make his voice
travel along the whole of his section [ivajfjborta] to the far end', in
the Cyropaedia (3.3.49-55), he has Cyrus disparage the effectiveness
of such speeches or exhortations, thus implying that they did occur.
Moreover, two Roman commanders of widely separated eras, Caesar
and Ammianus, make it clear that these pre-battle speeches were
commonplace. Caesar in his Commentaries calls such talks to the
troops prior to battle 'customary': 'exercitum cum militari more ad
pugnam cohortaretur' (B Civ. 3.90.1; cf. B Gall. 2.20.1). Perhaps the
best statement with respect to these pre-combat speeches is provided
by Ammianus Marcellinus. Ammianus comments, prior to Julian's
appeal to his troops already arrayed in formation before the battle at
Argentoratum, 'Quoniam alloqui pariter omnes nee longitudo spatiorum
extentay nee in unum coactae multitudinis permuterei (16.12.29). The
passage indicates that, had the numbers been fewer, a speech to the
entire army might have been given. Sound levels drop off precipitously
4 J. Keegan, The Mask of Command (New York. 1988), 55.

5 W. K. Pritchett, 'The General's Exhortations in Greek Warfare', in Essays in Greek History
(Amsterdam, 1994), 27.
6 Let me emphasize that this article only concerns the logistics of the pre-battle speech, not
the validity of any speech. Many historians believe that no credence can be given to any recorded
address, whether to an army arrayed for battle or otherwise. These are claimed by the critics to
be no more than rhetorical exercises produced by the historians themselves. Elizabeth Carney,
for example, writes, 'We need not believe a word of any of the speeches included in our surviving
sources... like most speeches preserved in ancient historical writers, these deserve little credence'
('Macedonians and Mutiny: Discipline and Indiscipline in the Army of Philip and Alexander',
CPh 91 [1996], 33).
306 THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION
with distance,7 but small numbers might be addressed at some

length while in battle formation. The question then becomes one of
determining just how small a force and in what sort of arrangement?
In this article, I will confine myself to those historians who were
both contemporary to the speeches they describe and also had personal
experience of battle. Indeed, where possible I will look at those who
report speeches that they gave or were present to hear.
The first question to be answered before such a study can even take
place is that of how many people, in an unamplified age, could be
expected to hear a speech. Hansen suggests ' 10,000 or even more'.8
The Pnyx in 330 bc could possibly have accommodated as many as
13,400,9 although it has been argued that fewer than 2,500 would
be able to hear the speakers clearly;10 perhaps, in two of the most
ideal settings - the theatre of Dionysus and the theatre at Epidaurus
- this might rise as high as 30,000 (PL Symp. 175e)n and 14,700
respectively.12 While these latter, 'fan-shaped' theatres were certainly
designed to accentuate the acoustics, still without amplification,
speakers historically are reported to have addressed audiences far larger
than Hansen 's suggested maximum without the benefit of acoustical
design. Ion, the Ephesian, according to Plato (Ion 535d-e), regularly
addressed audiences of 'more than 20,000', while speaking from a
'bêma' Newspaper accounts of the Lincoln-Douglas debates refer to
crowds of as many as 20,000 listening intently to the speakers,13 and the
audience present at Gettysburg was estimated at between 15,000 and
20,000, with Lincoln's voice being 'perfectly audible on the outskirts of
the crowd'.14 These amounts, however, are not scientific and are solely
based on the estimate of the observer. Modern acoustical studies, on
the other hand, suggest that the maximum numbers are in fact much
7 D. M. Addington and D. L. Schodek, Smart Materials and Technologies in Architecture for the
Architecture and Design Professions (Oxford, 2005), 77.
8 Hansen, 'Battle Exhortation' (n. 1), 178.
9M. H. Hansen, 'How many Athenians attended the Ecclesia?', GRBS 17 (1976), 131.
Hansen believes, however, that the usual attendance was approximately 6000 (ibid., 123-4).
10 M. C. Leff, 'Agency, Performance, and Interpretation in Thucydides' Account of the
Mytilene Debate', in C. L. Johnstone (ed.), Theory, Text, and Context. Issues in Greek Rhetoric and
Oratory fAlbanv, NY, 1996), 126.
11 This is a very optimistic estimate on the part of Plato.
12 F. Sear, Roman Theatres. An Architectural Study (Oxford, 2006), 396.
13 H. Holzer (ed.), The Lincoln-Douglas Debates (New York, 1993), 40, 234.
14 W. E. Barton, Lincoln at Gettysburg. What He Intended to Say; What He Said; What He Was
Reported to Have Said; What He Wished He Had Said (New York, 1950), 190, cf. 181, 184, 187,
188, 190, 192, 202. On the numbers present, see W. W. Braden, Abraham Lincoln, Public Speaker
(Baton Rouge, LA, 1988), 81; G.Wills, Lincoln at Gettysburg (New York, 1992), 33.
lower. Studies carried out at Epidaurus found that only a 72% word
articulation rate was achieved at the back of the theatre,15 and modern
indoor theatre design emphasizes that, for dramatic performances,
the audience should be no more than 32.8 yards (30 metres) from
the stage.16 In the theatre at Epidaurus, the maximum distance of
the audience from the stage is more than 72 yards (65 metres), with
the stage being approximately 11 yards (10 metres) from the closest
members of the audience.
Theatres, however, are designed to maximize the number of potential
listeners. In contrast, by how large a force arrayed for battle, in less
than ideal acoustical circumstances, could a commander reasonably be
expected to be heard, even if we accept what are probably exaggerated
crowd estimates in non-battlefield situations? The biggest limiting
factor is the length of the battle line.17 If we assume, purely for the
purposes of argument, that 20,000 is the maximum that under ideal
conditions could comprehend a speaker, then what would these ideal
conditions be? Sound waves emanate from their source roughly in
concentric, spherical waves or, in the case of human voice projection,
slightly oblong, hemispherical waves;18 given the design of the human
physical voice projection system, there exists an ideal cone for hearing
that projects at a 70° angle left and right from the speaker.19 Moreover,
many types of obstacles between the speaker and potential listeners
tend to absorb sound and prevent it from reaching those behind
these obstacles. Curiously enough, this is not so much the case with
human bodies per se, but rather is the result of the clothing worn.20
The more porous the material, the more sound it absorbs. On the
other hand, smooth and reflective surfaces (such as the metal found in
defensive armour) might to some degree amplify the sound, but would
also diffuse it, raising the ambient sound levels and making speech
less comprehensible.21 Consequently, the ideal arrangement for an
audience would be the form of a Greek theatre. Unfortunately, instead
15 M. Barron, Auditorium Acoustics and Architectural Design (London, 1992), 245.

16 A. von Gerkan and W. Müller- Wiener, Das Theater von Epidauros (Stuttgart, 1961), 76-84;
Barron (n. 15), 404.
17 As noted by Hansen, 'Battle Exhortation' (n. 1), 168-9.
18 See C. E. Speaks, Introduction to Sound. Acoustics for the Hearing and Speech Sciences, third
edition (Clifton Park, NY, 2005), 253. Vitruvius {De Arch. 3.6-8) clearly recognized this aspect
of voi re nronacration
19 M. D. Egan, Architectural Acoustics (New York, 1988), 83.

20 See S. G. Contia, P. Roux, and D. A. Demer, 'Measurement of the Scattering and
Absorption Cross Sections of the Human Body', Applied Physics Letters 84 (2004), 821.
21 Addington and Schodek (n. 7), 75.
of the bowl shape found in a theatre, on a battlefield the terrain would

typically be relatively flat. As on a stage, elevating the speaker would
enhance the travel of sound waves, limiting the deadening effect of
the troops. So a talk from a platform or even on horseback would be
preferable to standing in front of a ranked army.
If, assuming that each individual soldier takes up 1 . 1 square yards
standing in formation (0.919 square metres),22 and that there are 20,000
present, all arranged in eight lines, each line of 2,500 men would be
approximately 2625 yards (2400 metres).23 Even using Keegan's 5,000
arranged in ten ranks, the distance across the front is quite large: 525
yards (480 metres) along the 500-man front. In order to get some idea
of the difficulty of addressing either force, if troops then filled out the
semicircle with a 2,625-yard (2400-metre) diameter, approximately
2.46 million soldiers would be present.24 Even given a force of 5,000
with a front of 500 and a diameter of approximately 525 yards, a
filled semicircle would still have 98,348 present. Consequently, if the
troops were arranged in battle formation, a number obviously far
lower than 5,000 would be the maximum that could be addressed in a
formation that was ten ranks deep. Even assuming that 20,000 might
be addressed if they were arranged in a semicircle, the front would be
approximately 237 yards (217 metres) across, or a line of 225 soldiers,
and the total number of soldiers in just eight ranks could only be
1,800 individuals.25 If there were fewer than eight ranks with the same
length of line, then the number present would be smaller; if more than
22 Polybius assigns 9 square Greek feet to each soldier, both in a Macedonian phalanx
(18.29.2) and in a Roman legion (18.30.8). The Olympic foot was 320 mm or 12.6 inches or
1.05 yards (S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth [eds.], The Oxford Classical Dictionary, third edition
[Oxford, 1996], 943). For comparison, seats in the Theatre of Dionysius in Athens gave each
member of the audience 0.45 yards (0.41 metres) of seating space (Sear [n. 12], 26).
23 Using Polybius' calculation of the area occupied by a single soldier, to find the width across
the front take the square root of the area. This yields 1.0488 or more simply 1.05 yards (0.96
metres) .
24 The radius of a semicircle containing 22,000 square yards (20,000 x 1.1 [see n. 23]) is
found by solving the following: r=V(2A/ro) (where A = the area of the semicircle).
25 The maximum number of soldiers is determined by dividing 1.05 into the sum of 8 x
225. For the maths purists, however, since the ideal form is a semicircle, the eighth rank has
to fit within that semicircle. Consequently, the length of the line might need to be adjusted
accordingly, if the lines are to remain a consistent length. This calculation is based on the
Pythagorean theorem. The radius (hypotenuse) is 1 18.5 yards, one leg of the triangle is 8.4 yards
(8 x 1.05 = 8.4); thus, the second leg is 118.2 yards. Doubling the last result, dividing by 1.05,
and rounding down to the next whole number (in this case, person) gives a result for the eighth
line of 225. In short, there would be no change from the original calculation in this particular
case, but with increasing numbers of ranks the calculation would place an additional limit on the
number of troops that could be included.
eight, then larger, but with a corresponding reduction in the width of

the line owing to the semicircular form.
Since 20,000 is probably much too large for an audience even in a
theatre to hear a speaker with comprehension, despite our c eye-witness'
estimates, a more realistic number of those who could be addressed
while arrayed for battle would probably be much smaller than 1,800.
Using a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, a 'raised
voice' under ideal outdoor conditions (background noise level at 30
decibels26) might be heard up to 78 metres (85.3 yards) distant from
the speaker with 95% comprehension.27 The same study suggests
that a 'normal voice' might again be 95% understandable up to 72
metres (78.8 yards) away. Hansen in his own experiment states that
an individual with a 'strong voice', standing 50 metres (54.7 yards)
in front of the listeners, could be heard 'no more than ca. 75 m. [82
yards] in either direction'.28 If the figure for the 'raised voice' in the
EPA study is used and rounded off to 85 yards (77.7 metres) as a
maximum radius, the total number of soldiers arranged in eight ranks
that could be addressed would be 1,288.29 Of course, the EPA figures
are under ideal circumstances and do not involve comprehension by a
crowd, only a single individual. It is also known that wind, humidity,
and temperature can easily affect the audibility. A dry climate, for
example, can limit hearing by as much as 16 decibels.30 Given all the
variables, 1,200 is probably a good estimate of the maximum number
who could be successfully addressed when arrayed for battle.
With these assumptions in mind, I will examine the recorded
speeches of four authors who fulfil the criteria established earlier. In
chronological order these are Thucydides, Xenophon, Caesar, and
Ammianus. Thucydides records only three examples of a commander
addressing his troops already in battle formation (Thuc. 4.10.1-5,
4. 94.1-95.3, 6.67.3-68.4). Even though Thucydides had extensive
military experience and would have known the physical limits with
respect to pre-battle speeches, he clearly, in at least one case, presents
26 A very quiet country setting or the equivalent of a 'very soft whisper' (M. Hirschorn, IAC
Noise Control Reference Handbook, revised edition [New York, 19891).
27 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
'Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare
with an Adequate Margin of Safety' (March 1974), Report 550/9-74-004, <http://www.nonoise.
org/library/levels74/levels74.htm>, accessed 5 May 2010, D-5, Table D-l.
28 Hansen, 'Grey Horse' (n. 1).
29 This figure is derived in the same manner as that for the previously assumed maximum.
30Leff (n. 10), 120-1.
3 1 0 THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION
a pre-battle speech that could not have been delivered as recorded.

Before the Battle of Delium, he has Hippocrates address the army
while 'passing along the Athenian line' (Thuc. 4.94.2). The army was
already arrayed for battle with roughly 7,000 hoplites (Thuc. 4.93.3,
94.1)3 standing eight deep, and with the cavalry on the wings.31 If the
cavalry are excluded from consideration, the Athenian line would still
have extended 918.75 yards (840.11 metres). It would simply have
been impossible for Hippocrates to have been heard by his entire
army, especially since he started to speak not standing directly in
the middle of his front line but while riding across the front (Thuc.
4.94.2). 32 Here, Thucydides has clearly either invented a speech or
conflated Hippocrates' comments to individual soldiers or units into
a single speech.33 That the latter is apparently the case appears likely
from Thucydides' previous description of the speeches given by the
Boeotian commander Pagondas to his troops, 'company by company'
(4.91.1, 92. 1 -7). 34 These latter troops were armed as for battle but in
order of march, not already deployed in line.35
It is also doubtful that Nicias' speech to his troops before Syracuse
in the summer of 415 bc could have been given as described by
Thucydides. Nicias addressed the combined forces of the Athenians
and their allies in a speech of 175 words (Thuc. 6.68). He spoke to
them first nation by nation and then 'all together' (f vfiTraoi, Thuc.
6.67.3). Hansen regards this harangue as an elaboration of the few
encouraging remarks made by Nicias as he moved along the front of
the phalanx,36 and this is undoubtedly correct. The entire addressed
force numbered 2,600 hoplites, arranged in eight ranks,37 which would
31 The cavalry probably numbered less than 1,000 (see A. W. Gomme, A Historical Commentary
on Thucydides, iii, The TenYears'War, Books IV-V 24 [Oxford, 1956], 564).
32 His speech was interrupted before completion by the onset of the Boeotian advance (Thuc.
4.96.1).
33 A. W. Gomme, ('The Speeches of Thucydides', in Essays in Greek History and Literature
[Oxford, 1937], 172-3; Commentary [n. 31], iii.565) believes that Hippocrates delivered
several speeches to the different units, which Thucydides has made into one. Hansen ('Battle
Exhortation' [n. 11. 169; 'Grey Horse' [n. 1]) agrees.
34 Thucydides does include in his narrative speeches given to troops in assembly (for example,
see Thuc. 5.9.1-10, 7.61.1-64.2, 7.66.1-68.3).
35 See Gomme (n. 31), iii. 561. A similar situation occurs after the great battle in the harbour
of Syracuse and the subsequent Athenian retreat. Nicias, while 'passing along the ranks' of the
retreating units, 'shouting' to make himself heard by as many as possible, delivers, despite this
description, a single speech (Thuc. 7.67).
37 Nicias had 5,100 total hoplites (Thuc. 6.43) but had placed half of them in reserve (Thuc.
6.67.1).
THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION 3 1 1
present a front of approximately 341.25 yards (312.04 metres).38 If

the final speech were given as described, by the criteria set earlier
almost two-thirds of the soldiers would not have heard it. It is clear
that Thucydides is here exercising a great deal of liberty with respect
to the actual speech (rocáSe nape KeÁevro, Thuc. 6.67.3). While it is
possible that the last speech was meant for the Athenians alone, this
clearly is not what Thucydides says. This speech, like the previous one,
could not have been delivered as described.
In fact, there is only one example of a pre-battle speech in Thucydides
whose authenticity cannot be questioned on logistical grounds. In
423 Be, while in Lyncestis, Brasidas harangued his Teloponnesian'
forces (Thuc. 4.125.4-126.1). Here the troops actually addressed may
have numbered about 3,000 soldiers (Thuc. 4.124.1), but probably
fewer,39 who were organized in a square formation (Thuc. 4.125.2).
Such a formation could have presented a front of less than 58 yards
(roughly 53 metres) and, consequently, cannot then be questioned
based on physical grounds alone.
While not presenting direct speeches, Thucydides, prior to the Battle
of Mantinea in 418, states that the commanders of the respective
contingents of Mantineans, Argives, and Athenians harangued their
own forces shortly before joining battle (5.69.1). The number of
soldiers being separately addressed, however, is unknown ('putting
down the numbers of either host, or of the contingents composing
it, I could not do so with any accuracy', 5.68.2), and the comments,
while summarized, could easily conform to Hansen's description
of battlefield exhortations, as opposed to speeches. The opposing
Spartans, continues Thucydides, encouraged each other without any
words from their commander (5. 69. 2).40 Thucydides comments that
clong training of action was of more saving virtue than any brief verbal
exhortation, though never so well delivered'.
From this analysis of Thucydides' pre-battle speeches two things
become clear. The first is to note how few of these speeches actually
38 See note 22.

39 Brasidas' speech is addressed to the Teloponnesians' (Thuc. 4.126.1), who probably
numbered only about 1,100 (see Gomme [n. 31], iii.614). However, his formation had the
'hoplites' surrounding the light-armed troops. In effect, he was addressing the entire force.
40 Andrewes (A. W. Gomme, A. Andrewes, and K. J. Dover, A Historical Commentary on
Thucydides, iv, Books V 25-VII [Oxford, 1970], 118) suggests that the language here does not
specifically exclude exhortations from the commanders. However, the contrast (¡xev/Se) is made
more emphatic by the concluding clause, 'eíSóres epycov Ík ttoXXov fjbeXeTrjv ttA€loj oœÇovoav r¡
Áóycúv 8l òXíyov kclÁcòs * prjdeïoav n apaív '€O iv' '.
occur in his history. Only two speeches before large forces already
arrayed for battle are presented. Secondly, Thucydides implies that
some sort of exhortation to the troops before battle was common, but
not absolutely necessary (Thuc. 5.69.2).
The clearest testimony on the use of speeches prior to combat comes
from Xenophon, in his Anabasis. Here, even though more than twenty
army assembly meetings are recorded, often with extensive speeches,41
there is not a single pre-battle speech to a large army drawn up in line,
preparing for combat. Moreover, the difficulty of communicating with
large numbers of men is demonstrated by the frequent use of heralds
to give commands (5.2.18; cf. Hell. 6.2.34; 7.2.21), to summon troops
to assemble (5.7.3-4; cf. Hell. 4.5.7), and in general to address large
numbers of soldiers (2.2.20; 3.1.46; cf. Hell. 1.7.9; 2.4.20). Xenophon
does record four harangues to troops either preparing for combat or
returning from battle, but all of these are to small groups of soldiers.
While preparing to enter the land of the Carduchians, Xenophon
led a force of '300 picked hoplites' and an unknown number of
peltasts in an uphill attack (An. 3 A A3).42 At the start of the charge,
Xenophon, while riding along the ranks, spoke briefly encouraging
their assault (3.4.46). His encouraging words were interrupted before
completion by a comment from one of the hoplites and, as a result,
only amounted to a reported twenty-one words (3.4.47). The ultimate
size of Xenophon's force is unknown and the force was not drawn up
in formal line of battle. His second speech occurs shortly thereafter.
While returning from this previous assault, Xenophon encountered
Cheirisophus, one of the generals, and an unknown number of
soldiers who are themselves returning from the rescue of a number
of scattered Greek pillagers who were caught unawares by the Persian
forces. Xenophon rode along the squads of rescuers pointing out that,
while the king had forbidden the Greeks to burn any Persian property,
it was now the Persians themselves who were destroying their own
villages to keep them from the Greeks (An. 3.5.4-5). Even though the
address begins 'men of Greece5, it concludes with comments directed
specifically to Cheirisophus (3.5.6). It was probably, then, spoken only
to those who were gathered around their commander.
41 Xen.An. 1.3.3-6,9-20; 1.4.12, 14-16; 3.2.2-39; 5.1.2-13; 5.4.19-21; 5.5.8-24; 5.6.1-14,

22-34; 5.7.3-35; 5.8.1-26; 6.1.25-33; 6.2.4-7; 6.4.12-13, 17-19, 21-2; 6.6.12-19, 29-30, 37;
7.1.22-35; 7.3.13-14; 7.6.7-41.
42 Xenophon had left behind the forces of the rearguard and had apparently come forward
alone (An. 3.4.38-9).
In the land of the Colchians, while the army was being drawn up
into columns (An. 4.8. 14-1 5), Xenophon, moving (ámcov) across
the front of the gathering columns from right to left, addressed 'the
soldiers' in a speech of twenty-four words (An. 4.8.14). In the first
place, this was not an army drawn up for battle, and nor is it clear
which soldiers he may have been addressing.
In the last of these harangues, prior to an attack on the Bithynians,
Xenophon reports that he rode along the front of the 'phalanx' and
delivered a short speech to the soldiers (An. 6.5.23-5). The size of
the army at this point is not known, although we are told that all
soldiers over the age of forty-five had been left in the camp (6.5.4).
Furthermore, the troops had just crossed a ravine in no regular order
(6.5.22; cf. 6.5.12), and Xenophon was attempting to lead them
back into line and, consequently, may only have been addressing the
vanguard of the hurriedly assembling soldiers (6.5.25).
There remains one other speech in which the entire army is clearly
involved and, even though it is a speech that does not precede a battle,
it follows the army being arranged as if for battle. Before the walls of
Byzantium, Xenophon ordered the army to arrange itself in line of
battle, with the hoplites 'eight ranks deep' and the light-armed troops
gathered on the flanks (7.1.23). This force numbered approximately
8,000, of whom less than 7,600 were hoplites, but the hoplites
alone would have spread across approximately 997.5 yards (912.1
metres).43 Such a speech could therefore only have been heard by less
than a quarter of the assembled troops. However, Xenophon goes
on to say that the troops having formed up in ranks then grounded
their weapons, after which he called them together (ovyKaXeï) and
delivered his speech (7.1.24). Apparently the troops left their ranks
and gathered before Xenophon to hear what he had to say.44 No battle
was subsequently fought and the troops proceeded to hear others and
vote measures (7.1.33). What had begun as an army marshalled as for
battle became an army arranged in assembly. Given a semicircle with
a radius of 85 yards, an army of more than 10,300 could have heard
43 Only the hoplites were arranged in the eight ranks; the peltasts were collected on the wings
(An. 7 .1. 23). Given the rate of attrition from the original force of 1 1,700 (An. 1.2.3, 6, 9) to that
later in Colchis of 8,000 (An. 4.8.15), at Cerasus the total force numbered less than 8,600, with
probably 7,600 being hoplites (cf. An. 5.3.3). In the first encounter with the Bithynians, who had
been joined by Pharnabazus, the Greeks lost 500 men (An. 6.4.24).
44 In An. 6.3.11, Xenophon clearly uses the same verb to mean a gathering of the soldiers
around him.
Xenophon's speech. This analysis therefore suggests that Xenophon

never claimed to address the entire force while arrayed for battle.
This is also the case with his Hellenica. On just three occasions in
this work, Xenophon refers to speeches made immediately before
combat. This is true even though the Hellenica, just like the Anabasis,
is replete with speeches.45 In 404 bc, Thrasybulus addressed (Hell.
2 A .13-17) an army of probably slightly more than a thousand men
(2.4. 10),46 arranged in a line 'not more than ten hoplites deep',
with peltasts and others lightly equipped behind them (2.4.12). The
troops had been ordered to ground their shields but to retain their
weapons during the speech (2.4.12). Obviously, such a small body
with a front of approximately 105 yards (roughly 96 metres) could
have been addressed. Later, the Spartan Anaxibius, caught in an
ambush while descending a mountain with his army strung out along
the trail, addressed 'those who were present' (Hell. 4.8.38-9). The
actual number is unknown. Xenophon only mentions that Anaxibius'
VatStAca' and 'about twelve harmosts' died with him (4.8.39). In any
case, this was a short speech of sixteen words and was never meant for
the entire army, nor were the troops drawn up in line of battle.
The remaining speech in the Hellenica that is given to an army
arrayed for battle occurs before the onset of what became known as
the 'Tearless Battle'. Archidamus, while moving along the front of the
Spartan 6lochoi' delivered a thirty-seven word harangue (Hell. 7.1.30).
He addressed his audience as 'fellow citizens', thus indicating that
this speech was meant for the Spartans alone and not the unknown
number of Greek, Celtic, and Iberian allies/mercenaries present
(7.1.27-29, 31). If the entire Spartan complement of twelve lochoi
were in attendance, there were still probably only about a thousand
'citizens' being addressed (Arist. Pol. 1270a 29-32). 47 In any case,
Xenophon here is merely repeating what he has been told, 'e^aaay'
(Hell. 7.1.30), not something he actually witnessed.
45 For example, Xen. Hell. 1.1.14, 28; 1.6.5-11; 1.7.16-33; 2.3.24-34, 35-49, 52-3; 2.4.12-
17, 20-2; 3.5.8-15; 4.1.32-3, 34-8; 4.8.4; 5.1.13-17; 5.2.12-19; 6.1.4-16; 6.3.4-6, 7-9, 10-17;
6.5.37, 38-48; 7.1.2-11, 12-14, 23-4, 44; 7.3.6, 7-11; 7.4.8.
46 Thrasybulus had moved to Piraeus from Phyle with 'about 1,000 troops', but on their
arrival had been joined by a large number of 'stone-throwers' from the surrounding area {Hell.
2.4.12).
47 See W. G. Forrest, A History of Sparta, 950-192 b.c. (London, 1968), 132-5; T. J. Figueira,
'Population Patterns in Late Archaic and Classical Sparta', TAPhA 115 (1986), 208; P. Cartledge,
Sparta and Lakonia. A Regional History 1300-362 bc (London, 2001), 263-4, 319. According to
Diodorus (15.72.3), 10,000 Arcadians were killed without the loss of a single Spartan.
Of the Roman commanders, Ammianus, even though recording

over ten speeches to soldier assemblies,48 presents only one example
of an exhortation made to an army already drawn up for battle. This
is the previously mentioned exhortation prior to the attack on the
Alamanni in the battle at Argentoratum. Here, because of the 'wide
extent of the field' and the 'great numbers' present, Julian rode along
the line of the deployed troops, giving brief exhortations (sixteen to
thirty-five words) to the different units and groups (Amm. Marc.
16.12.29-34), even those cin ade locatos extrema' ('located at the end
of the line'; Amm. 16. 12.31). There are two occasions where the exact
circumstances of a speech to an army are unclear. Prior to engaging
the Juthungi, Barbatio, the Roman commander, harangued his troops
(17.6.2), but the size of his force is uncertain ('strong') and the timing
of the talk, whether in an assembly or to soldiers already drawn up
for battle, is likewise unclear. In ad 365, the usurper Procopius
rushed out into the midst of two opposing armies on the point of
engaging and convinced the rival force to submit to his authority
(26.7.14-17). The latter force consisted of two legions. But much of
what happened was visual: Procopius left the ranks and, recognizing
someone in the opposing line, directly addressed him, held out his
hand, and then kissed him. What he said could only have been heard
by a small number, but their reaction obviously influenced the others,
who subsequently lowered 'the tips of their standards' and hailed him
as emperor (26.7.17). Therefore, even though the implication is that
some sort of an address was given before battle, Ammianus' narrative
suggests that these were, as Hansen describes, speeches to troops in
assembly, talks to individual units already arrayed for battle, and brief
exhortations to individuals and groups.
Caesar's personally recorded battlefield speeches are more prob-
lematic. On the surface it would appear that talks to tens of thousands
of troops in battle array were a common occurrence in his Commentaries
(B Civ. 3.90. 1).49 However, upon closer examination, it becomes
clear that Caesar is only attempting to summarize his exhortations to
his troops. Even though he is not always explicit in his narrative, he
typically followed a policy of summoning a council50 and/or an army
48 Amm. Marc. 14.10.4, 10-16; 15.8.4, 14; 17.1.2; 17.13.24-33; 20.4.14-18; 20.5.1-7;
20.9.6-7; 21.5.1-8; 21.13.9-15; 23.5.15-23; 24.3-8; 26.2.2-10; 27.6.5-13.
49 B Gall. 1.25.1; 2.20-26.1; 3.19.2; 3.24.5; 5.33.2; B Civ. 1.45.1; 2.34.5; 2.39.2-3; 2.41.2;
2.42.1; 3.90, 97.1.
50 B Gall. 1.40; 3.3; 5.28.2-30.3; 6.7.4, 8; 7.60.1; B Civ. 1.19.1; 1.67.1; 1.73.1; 1.78.2;
2.30.1-31.8; 2.38.1; 3.86.1-87.7.
assembly51 before deployment, and then, once in battle formation,

exhorting his troops unit by unit.52 None of Caesar's 'encouragements'
prior to battle is given in full, only short summaries.53 This is the case
with his exhortation before Pharsalus (B Civ. 3.90), which in summary
amounts to just a little over fifty words. Caesar reminds his men of
his many kindnesses to them, and his many efforts to make peace,
including his attempts at negotiation, with his enemies. As described,
this speech, however brief, was given to an army of 22,000, divided into
eighty cohorts and arranged in three lines (3.89.2, 4). Regardless of the
depth of these respective lines, the battlefront must have extended at
least two-thirds of a mile. Moreover, Caesar was clearly positioned on
the right wing of his army: Pompey occupied the left wing (3.88.1-2)
and Caesar was directly opposite him (3.89.3). When Caesar gave the
signal to engage (3.90.3), Gaius Crastinus, previously first centurion
in the Tenth Legion, exhorted his men and addressed Caesar directly
(3.91). Therefore, either Caesar's exhortation was only given to the
Tenth Legion (cf. 3.89.1), or Caesar has conflated separate addresses
to the different units into one speech. Giving separate exhortations
to the respective units, when possible, was apparently a common
practice with Caesar before battle (B Gall. 2.21.1-4, 2.25.1; cf. B Civ.
1.76.1). This speech, however, is suspicious on other grounds. It is a
justification for Caesar's actions during the civil war, and summarizes
many points that he made in earlier contexts (B Civ. 1.7, 32). His
'speeches' to his troops already in battle array were most often simple,
almost generic: 'Remember your valour, don't be afraid, withstand the
enemy's attack' (B Gall. 2.21.1-2; cf. B Gall. 6.8.3-4). In an attempt
to exonerate himself in the face of the deaths of so many Roman
citizens, Caesar may have created for posterity still one more, albeit
fictitious, reminder that his goals in the civil war were honourable.
One point brought out by Caesar is that the importance of the
exhortation went well beyond the words spoken. The mere presence
of the commander, showing confidence, would encourage an army in
ways that transcended speech (Onasander, Strategikos 1.13). This is
shown in the account of Caesar's presence in battle against the Nervii:
'cuius adventu spe illata militibus ac redintegrato animo, cum pro se quisque
in conspectu imperatoris etiam in extremis suis rebus operam navare cuperef
51 B Gall 5.49.4; 6.8.3-4; 7.40.4; 7.52.1-53.1; B Civ. 1.7; 1.19.1; 1.20.1-3; 2.32; 3.6.1;
3.41.5; 3.73.2-6; 3.76.2; 3.80.6; 3.82.1; 3.84.1; 3.85.4.
52 B Gall 2.21.1-4; 2.25.1; 7.17.4; B Civ. 1.76.1; 2.41.2.
53 B Gall. 1.25.1; 2.25.1; 5.33.2; 7.62.2; 7.86.3.
('On his arrival, hope was brought to the soldiers and their courage
restored, while every one for his own part, in the sight of his general,
desired to exert his utmost energy'; B Gall. 2.25.3). This was also
the case with Alexander prior to Issus: after encouraging his officers
in conference (Arr. Anab. 2.7.3-4), he rode along the front of his
phalanx making his presence known and addressing individual soldiers
(Arr. Anab. 2.10.2). What is clear is that the pre-battle exhortation
was a common practice. Where numbers or just the general extent
of the battle line made it difficult for the commander to deliver a
single speech to the entire army, there were a number of options that
he might employ to accomplish the same goal. He could address his
troops in assembly prior to deployment, exhort the respective unit
commanders (who would in turn encourage their units), or speak
himself to each division individually. His appearance alone was meant
to have a heartening effect.
The general content of these exhortations has remained relatively
consistent over time. General George S. Patton, before Operation
Overlord, gave a speech to the Third Army that was remarkably similar
to those given by ancient commanders. He extolled the fighting qualities
of his men, and encouraged them to stand and fight honourably and
with thought for their fellow soldiers.54 Even the advice for proper
elocution is concordant from antiquity to the present day: speak from
the diaphragm, speak slowly, pronounce each syllable clearly. These
are the same, whether the advice is from Cicero or Quintillian,55
Thomas Sheridan, the Irish rhetorician, in 1762,56 or as found in the
current US Army Field Manual's instructions regarding the 'command
voice'.57
The point to be made is that commanders, either directly or
indirectly, typically did address their troops and, depending on the
situation, employed varying strategies to do so. Onasander (Strategikos
4.3, 23.1) recommends that the general encourage his troops in
assemblies and even riding along the line after deployment. While
Hansen is certainly correct that those speeches supposedly given to
large numbers of soldiers spread across half a mile or more are fictional,
a relatively small force could be and probably was addressed in tow.
54 C. M. Province, The Unknown Patton (New York. 1983), 12-14.

55 SeeT. Habinek, Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory (Maiden, MA, 2005Ì, 16, 44-50, 102.
56 T. Sheridan, A Course of Lectures on Elocution, reissue of 1762 edition (New York, 1968),
21-30.
57 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual, No. 22-5, Drill and Ceremonies,
'Commands and the Command Voice', 2-4-2-6.
It is also to be noted that long pre-battle speeches are not reported

with any great frequency in those sources with a military background.
In his Anabasis, for example. Arrian only refers to one such talk, that
which occurred before the fighting commenced at Issus, and this is
no more than exhortations delivered to individual soldiers (Anab.
2.10.2). On occasion, historians present more extensive speeches (as
perhaps in the case of Caesar at Pharsalus); however, these are not
meant to represent actual situations but rather to achieve some other
goal. While Xenophon nowhere in his histories presents a commander
delivering an extensive speech to a large, deployed, army, he has the
Assyrian commander in his Cyropaedia do so (3.3.43-6),58 but then
this work is not meant to be a detailed, or even accurate, history of the
rise of Persia.59 That subsequent historians, especially those without
military experience, would embellish these speeches, even to the point
of invention, is certainly credible. For example, Hansen compares the
previous account of the brief exhortations from Alexander before Issus
in Arrian, with the much longer and far more elaborate ones found in
Curtius (3.10.3-10).60
While it is probable that speeches were expanded and even
invented, these amplifications or inventions were based on the reality
of pre-battle speeches or exhortations. Troops were addressed in camp
and after deployment for battle. If the force was small enough, the
commander might deliver a rather extensive speech to those already
arrayed for combat; if the force was too large, then the commander
had other options.
EDWARD ANSON
emanson@ualr. edu
58 Cyrus delivers a speech to his officers only (3.3.34-9). However, Xenophon has Cyrus
explain that he is not addressing the troops directly 'so they may try to please you, for you are
in touch with them, each in his own division' (39).
59 This work is intended more as a character study: 'Believing this man [Cyrus the Great]
to be deserving of all admiration, we have therefore investigated who he was in his origin, what
natural endowments he possessed, and what sort of education he had enjoyed, that he so greatly
excelled in governing men. Accordingly, what we have found out or think we know concerning
him we shall now endeavour to present' (Cyr. 1.1.6). In fact, Xenophon's description of the elder
Cyrus is probably an amalgam of the younger Cyrus and others whom Xenophon admired.

The General's Pre-Battle Exhortation in Graeco-Roman Warfare

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The General's Pre-Battle Exhortation in Graeco-Roman Warfare

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE GENERAL'S PRE-BATTLE EXHORTATION IN GRAECO-ROMAN WARFARE

Author(s): EDWARD ANSON