¹ For Lucian and the history-writing of his time, and especially its backwards-looking quality and loyalty to earlier models, see Kemezis, A. M., ‘Lucian, Fronto, and the Absence of Contemporary Historiography under the Antonines’, AJPh 131 (2010), 285–325 Google Scholar.

² The term, and the contemporary consciousness of the non-fiction battle piece as an object of study, goes back to Keegan, J., The Face of Battle (New York, 1986 [London, 1976¹]), 36–46 Google Scholar, 62–73.

³ For the truth-orientation of ancient historical writing (sometimes denied in recent scholarship, as is the notion that the ancients had a concept of truth similar to our own), see Wheeldon, M. J., ‘“True Stories”: The Reception of Historiography in Antiquity’, in Cameron, A. (ed.), History as Text. The Writing of Ancient History (London, 1989)Google Scholar, esp. 41–50, 59–62; Fox, M., ‘Dionysius, Lucian, and the Prejudice against Rhetoric in History’, JRS 91 (2001) 76–93 Google Scholar; Lendon, J. E., ‘Historians without History: Against Roman Historiography’, in Feldherr, A. (ed.), Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians (Cambridge, 2009), 41–61 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whately, C., Battles and Generals. Combat, Culture, and Didacticism in Procopius’ Wars (Leiden, 2016), 18–20 Google Scholar. The actual credibility of ancient battle description, and the practical difficulties that even conscientious historians in antiquity had in gathering and presenting information about the course of battle (difficult even for participants, as remarked in Eur. Supp. 846–56), has been dealt with ably elsewhere: Whatley, N., ‘On the Possibility of Reconstructing Marathon and other Ancient Battles’, JHS 84 (1964), 119–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Paul, G. M., ‘Two Battles in Thucydides’, EMC 31 (1987), 307–9Google Scholar; Woodman, A. J., Rhetoric in Classical Historiography (London, 1988), 18–23 Google Scholar; Whitby, M., ‘Reconstructing Ancient Warfare’, in Sabin, P., van Wees, H., and Whitby, M. (eds.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Warfare, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar, i.54–81; Bichler, R., ‘Probleme und Grenzen der Rekonstruktion von Ereignissen am Beispiel antiker Schlachtbeschreibungen’, in Fitzenreiter, M. (ed.), Das Ereignis. Geschichtsschreibung zwischen Vorfall und Befund (London, 2009), 17–34 Google Scholar; cf. for the First World War, the classic account of Fussell, P., The Great War and Modern Memory (New York, 1975), 169–90Google Scholar. The present article concerns literary conventions guiding ancient battle description, and how they sometimes drew ancient historians to invent or falsify history: but genre and convention per se are not obstacles to truth. All history writing (indeed all writing of any type) relies on conventions, or sets of conventions (genre), to guide the presentation of material.

⁴ The same mix of camera-work was frequent in older fiction, but there has been a strong tendency in US fiction since Vietnam, in imitation of Tim O'Brien, intentionally to exclude the helpful, orienting, middle-height camera and describe only the subjective experience of the fighters, either rejecting an orderly context as false in principle ( Packer, G., ‘Home Fires: How Soldiers Write their Wars’, New Yorker 90.7 [7 April 2014], 71 Google Scholar) or so that the reader, as confused as the soldier-characters about the wider context of the fighting, will share the experience of the soldier and feel the same alienation from the everyday: Braswell, S. M., ‘War Stories: “Truth” and Particulars’, War, Literature, and the Arts 11.1 (1999), 154 Google Scholar, calls this a ‘confined perspective’.

⁵ This article treats chiefly the fully worked-out battle piece and its conventions in the classical historians. But ancient historical authors very often described battles in a more summary way (although using many of the same elements as in fuller descriptions; see below), and scholars in the 1930s strove to develop a rough system of classification of battle descriptions by their length and features: see Gaida, E., Die Schlachtschilderung in den Antiquitates Romanae des Dionys von Halikarnaß (Breslau, 1934)Google Scholar, esp. 6, 29–30; Plathner, H.-G., Die Schlachtschilderungen bei Livius (Breslau, 1934), 10 Google Scholar, 50; and recently Gómez, J. Bartolomé, Los relatos bélicos en la obra de Tito Livio (Estudio de la primera década de Ab urbe condita) (Vitoria, 1995)Google Scholar. Levene, D. S., ‘Warfare in the Annals ’, in Woodman, A. J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Tacitus (Cambridge, 2009), 225–38Google Scholar, considers why so many of the battles described in Tacitus’ Annals are reported in summary form (and why others are not).

⁶ For literature on battle descriptions in individual ancient authors, see the Appendix to Part II of this article. Sabin, P., Lost Battles. Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World (London, 2007), 4–5 Google Scholar, offers a brief account of the conventions of ancient battle description, and Gaida's (n. 5) typology of battle types and genre elements in Dionysius of Halicarnassus is valuable for the whole tradition. For ancient discussions of ancient historians’ methods in describing battle, see D'Huys, V., ‘How to Describe Violence in Historical Narrative’, AncSoc 18 (1987), 209–50Google Scholar, drawing especially on Polyb. 12.17–22, 12.25 f., and Lucian, Hist. conscr. 49.

⁷ Lucian, Hist. conscr. 49, urges that the array be made subordinate to the general's thinking, but such a structure is uncommon enough that actual instances surprise (Amm. Marc. 16.12.21–3; Procop. 1.13.19–23, 5.28.29; for Diodorus, see Roldán, M. Alganza and Ponsoda, M. Villena, ‘La descripción de la táxis en Diodoro de Sicilia’, in Lens, J. [ed.], Estudios sobre Diodoro de Sicilia [Granada, 1994], 237 Google Scholar [first published in FlorIlib 2 (1991), 21–32]); and arrays planned in reaction to an enemy array are just as rare (Arr. Anab. 2.9.1–3, 3.12.1–2; cf. Heliod. Aeth. 9.16). But an author's need to describe a military trick (e.g. Polyb. 3.71 = Livy 21.54; Caes. B Gall. 2.17) can place a planning passage before the description of the array.

⁸ Bartolomé Gómez (n. 5), 137–40, collects the arrays in Livy, Books 1–10; Plathner (n. 5), 50–1, lists the arrays in Livy, Books 21–42; Bucher, G. S., ‘Fictive Elements in Appian's Pharsalus Narrative’, Phoenix 59 (2005), 52 Google Scholar n. 8, collects arrays in Appian.

⁹ Battle speeches (their topoi and relationship to reality are treated in detail in Part II of this article) can be staged in various ways: presented as given directly to the troops at an assembly, given to the troops arrayed in line of battle (either from a central position or by the leader riding along the ranks – an epipōlēsis), given to a portion of the army only, conveyed by messengers, delivered to officers, etc. Centeno, D. Carmona, Trujillo, M. L. Harto, Zoido, J. C. Iglesias, and Álvarez, J. Villabla, ‘ Corpus de agengas en la historiografía grecolatina’, in Zoido, J. C. Iglesias (ed.), Retórica e historiografía. El discorso militar en la historiografía desde la Antigüedad hasta el Renacimiento (Madrid, 2008), 537–64Google Scholar, categorize surviving speeches by how they are staged.

¹⁰ Effect on the listeners: in Tacitus and Livy especially, see Tac. Ann. 2.15.1, orationem ducis secutus militum ardor (‘the speech of the general inspired a fiery enthusiasm in the soldiers’); Ann. 14.36.3, 15.12.4; Agr. 33.1 with Woodman, A. J., Tacitus: Agricola (Cambridge, 2014)Google Scholar, ad loc.; Agr. 35.1, finem orationis ingens alacritas consecuta est (‘after the speech was finished a tremendous zeal gripped [the soldiers]’); and alacritas is the usual term for the troops’ reaction in Livy – Oakley, S. P., A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1997–2005)Google Scholar, ad loc. Livy 7.33.4, collects instances.

¹¹ Albertus, J., Die ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΤΙΚΟΙ in der griechischen und römischen Literatur (Strassburg, 1908)Google Scholar, including (quite properly) some speeches which use the topoi of battle speeches, but do not strictly occur before battles; Trujillo, M. L. Harto, Las arengas militares en la historiografía Latina (Madrid, 2008), 28 Google Scholar, conveniently reproduces his list. Including briefer remarks by leaders, Carmona Centeno et al. (n. 9) assemble some hundreds of instances.

¹² E.g. Polyb. 2.67–9, 16.3–6; Caes. B Gall. 7.47, 50; Tac. Hist. 3.23; Procop. 4.20.18–20, with Whately (n. 3), 169–71. Lucian (Hist. conscr. 49) urges upon the historian a view of battle like that of Zeus in Homer, i.e. what I have called ‘high camera’.

¹³ Even though Polybius (12.17–22, 12.25 f.) is delighted to denounce his colleagues for their failure properly to report manoeuvres; cf. Lucian, Hist. conscr. 29, 37.

¹⁴ Xen. Hell. 4.3.19; cf. Diod. Sic. 18.17.4, 19.30; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.11–12; Cato (Peter F83 = Cornell F76, although, to make a point, Cato does not name the hero); Livy 9.40.7–14, 10.28, 27.48.13–14; Tac. Ann. 2.20.3; Amm. Marc. 15.4.10–11. For the depiction of the commander's role in fourth-century bc and Hellenistic battle description, see Beston, P., ‘Hellenistic Military Leadership’, in van Wees, H. (ed.), War and Violence in Ancient Greece (London, 2000), 325–8Google Scholar. Nolan, D., ‘Caesar's Exempla and the Role of Centurions in Battle’, in Armstrong, J. (ed.), Circum Mare. Themes in Ancient Warfare (Leiden, 2016), 56–7Google Scholar, argues that heroic individuals represent and characterize the soldiers they lead.

¹⁵ Diod. Sic. 18.30–1; Livy 2.19–20; Procop. 5.18.4–15. Gaida (n. 5), 22–5, lists heroic interventions in the battle descriptions of Dionysius of Halicarnassus; cf. Whately (n. 3), 169–71, for Procopius. Tac. Hist. 2.43 depicts individual legions fighting each other as if they were heroes in single combat, illustrating the power of that model.

¹⁶ See Oakley (n. 10), ad loc. Livy 6.8.1–4; Whately (n. 3), 188–90.

¹⁷ On the general indifference of ancient authors to accurate topography, see Horsfall, N., ‘Illusion and Reality in Latin Topographical Writing’, G&R 32 (1985), 197–208 Google Scholar; on battle topography in Thucydides, and how he ‘limit[s] himself to what is absolutely necessary for events to be understood’, see Funke, P. and Haake, M., ‘Theatres of War: Thucydidean Topography’, in Rengakos, A. and Tsakmakis, A. (eds.), Brill's Companion to Thucydides (Leiden, 2006), 383 Google Scholar; cf. Rood, T., ‘[Space in] Xenophon’, in de Jong, I. J. F. (ed.), Space in Ancient Greek Literature (Leiden, 2012), 165–6Google Scholar, 171–2, and idem, ‘[Space in] Polybius’, in ibid., 182, for Polybius’ criticism of other authors, and 190–3 on Polybius’ own practice; Levene (n. 5), 234–7, on Tacitus. For an exception, where a wider description of landscape about to become a battlefield is given, see Sall. Iug. 48.3–4. Gowing, A. M., The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor, MI, 1992), 210–11Google Scholar, 218, 220, argues that Appian offers other exceptions.

¹⁸ E.g. Thuc. 7.70–1; Diod. Sic. 20.51; Polyb. 2.28–9, 5.84, 16.3; [Caes.] B Afr. 84; Amm. Marc. 16.12.52–7, 31.13.2–8; and cf. Heliod. Aeth. 9.18. See Plathner (n. 5), 13, 51–2, for such features in Livy. On enargeia in ancient critical assessments of battle descriptions, see D'Huys (n. 6); Walker, A. D., ‘ Enargeia and the Spectator in Greek Historiography’, TAPhA 123 (1993), 353–77Google Scholar; and esp. Plut. Vit. Artax. 8.1; Mor. 347.

¹⁹ Plathner (n. 5), 51, lists battle descriptions in Livy, Books 21–40, with no depiction of combat at all.

²⁰ Bartolomé Gómez (n. 5), 165–84, collects examples from Livy, Books 1–10.

²¹ E.g. Tac. Agr. 35–7. This is a phenomenon of which, for Livy, Levene, D. S., Livy on the Hannibalic War (Oxford, 2010), 261–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives an excellent account, although our explanations are different.

²² Quotation from Lucian, Hist. conscr. 49. For such moments, see e.g. Polyb. 11.13.3–11.14.2; Livy 7.8.4, 7.33.17, 9.32.7–8 (and see Oakley [n. 10], ad loc. Livy 6.13.1); Sall. Iug. 52.1–4; Tac. Ann. 2.20.3–2.21.2; cf. Ach. Tat. 3.13.

²³ Plathner (n. 5), 12–13, lists passages – and the reason Livy gives for victory and defeat – in Livy, Books 1–10; cf. Bruckmann, H., Die römischen Niederlagen im Geschichtswerk des T. Livius (Bochum-Langendreer, 1936), 44–7Google Scholar, 104–12, 118–20.

²⁴ E.g. Tac. Ann. 2.17.4–5; Hist. 3.25.2–3; Amm. Marc. 16.12.57–60.

²⁵ For Homer and the Greek art of war, see Lendon, J. E., Soldiers and Ghosts. A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity (New Haven, CT, 2005), 36–8Google Scholar, 66–7, 84–5 (with n. 11 for later Greek references to Homer as a guide to warfare), 96–7, 115–39, 146–9, 157–61. A history of the art of battle description from Homer to Thucydides, but with a different emphasis, is given by de Romilly, J., Histoire et raison chez Thucydide (Paris, 1956) 107–79Google Scholar (trans. Rawlings, E. T. as The Mind of Thucydides [Ithaca, NY, 2012]Google Scholar). For military topoi in Greek and Latin poetry, see Erbig, F. E., Topoi in den Schlachtberichten römischer Dichter (Danzig, 1931)Google Scholar, and Miniconi, P.-J., Étude des themes ‘guerriers’ de la poésie épique greco-romaine (Paris, 1951)Google Scholar (the latter with a magnificent index of topoi).

²⁶ For Homeric elements in Herodotus’ account of Thermopylae, see Flower, M., ‘Simonides, Ephorus, and Herodotus on the Battle of Thermopylae’, CQ 48 (1998), 365–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lendon (n. 25), 65–7 with references; and generally on the relationship of the fighting in Herodotus to that in Homer, Boedeker, D., ‘Pedestrian Fatalities: The Prosaics of Death in Herodotus’, in Derow, P. and Parker, R. (eds.), Herodotus and His World (Oxford, 2003), 17–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lucian, Hist. conscr. 45, urges the spirit of poetry upon historians describing ‘arrays and battles and sea-battles’. Foucher, A., Historia proxima poetis. L'influence de la poésie épique sur le style des historiens latins de Salluste à Ammien Marcellin (Brussels, 2000)Google Scholar, emphasizes the power of epic over the Latin tradition, but S. Hornblower, ‘Warfare in Ancient Literature’, in Sabin, van Wees, and Whitby (n. 3), i.39–49, notes the limits of the debt to Homer: some aspects of Homeric battle description – like the graphic descriptions of wounds to individuals (a tradition that flourishes in later poetry) – were not picked up, as far as we can see, in the prose historical tradition until Procopius in the sixth century ad (e.g. 6.2.15–17, with Whately [n. 3], 161–8, and then only in the Gothic Wars, 163; but see Lucian, Hist. conscr. 20; Lib. Prog. 12.1.7 [Foerster viii.462]). For the relationship between battle descriptions in Latin poetry and history, selecting from much writing, see Ash, R., ‘Epic Encounters? Ancient Historical Battle Narratives and the Epic Tradition’, in Levene, D. S. and Nelis, D. (eds.), Clio and the Poets (Leiden, 2002), 253–73Google Scholar; Rossi, A., Contexts of War. Manipulation of Genre in Virgilian Battle Narrative (Ann Arbor, MI, 2004)Google Scholar.

²⁷ On indifference to terrain in the Iliad, see I. J. F. de Jong, ‘[Space in] Homer’, in de Jong (n. 17), 24. On noise, see Thuc. 7.70–1; Polyb. 2.29.6, 15.12; Amm. Marc. 16.12; cf. Lucian, Ver. hist. 1.36–8; Heliod. Aeth. 9.17. D'Huys, V., ‘ΧΡΗΣΙΜΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΕΡΠΝΟΝ in Polybios' Schlachtschilderungen. Einige literarische Topoi in seiner Darstellung der Schlacht bei Zama (XV 9–16)’, in Verdin, H., Schepens, G., and de Keyser, E. (eds.), Purposes of History (Louvain, 1990), 270–7Google Scholar, draws the connection to noise in Homer and gathers many instances; see esp. Lucian, Hist. conscr. 22, and Polyb. 15.12.9 (where the Homeric link is explicit). Representing the noise of battle was a considerable theme of First World War poetry too: see Harvey, A. D., A Muse of Fire. Literature, Art and War (London, 1998), 164–70Google Scholar.

²⁸ For Homer's camera work (as it were), see Latacz, J., Kampfparänese, Kampfdarstellung und Kampfwirklichkeit in der Ilias, bei Kallinos und Tyrtaios (Munich, 1977), 68–74 Google Scholar; van Wees, H., ‘Kings in Combat: Battles and Heroes in the Iliad ’, CQ 38 (1988), 1–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and esp. van Wees, H., ‘Homeric Warfare’, in Morris, I. and Powell, B. (eds.), A New Companion to Homer (Leiden, 1997), 673–4Google Scholar. The battle descriptions in messenger speeches in Greek tragedy (Aesch. Pers. 249–514; Eur. Supp. 650–730) use the same mix of high and low camera, helping to confirm the Homeric origins of the practice in prose. Where did Homer get his conventions? For what it is worth, Kelly, –A., ‘Homeric Battle Narrative and the Ancient Near East’, in Cairns, D. and Scodel, R. (eds.), Defining Greek Narrative (Edinburgh, 2014), 40–54 Google Scholar, argues for dissimilarity to Ancient Near Eastern texts.

²⁹ For battle description in Homer, see Strasburger, G., Die kleinen Kämpfer der Ilias (Frankfurt, 1954)Google Scholar; Fenik, B., Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad (Wiesbaden, 1968)Google Scholar; Latacz (n. 28); van Wees (n. 28 [1997]); Hellman, O., Die Schlachtszenen der Ilias (Stuttgart, 2000)Google Scholar; Clay, J. S., Homer's Trojan Theater. Space, Vision, and Memory in the Iliad (Cambridge, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ Van Wees (n. 28 [1988]), esp. 15–22.

³¹ Or express relief: Sabin (n. 6), xv, refers to ‘the “black box” that mercifully conceals from us the horrendous experience of massed close quarter combat’.

³² On this passage, about which we can be relatively sure Tacitus had no authentic details because the clash was between non-Roman armies in Armenia, see Ash, R., ‘An Exemplary Conflict: Tacitus' Parthian Battle Narrative (Annals 6.34–35)’, Phoenix 53 (1999), 115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tacitus seems to have adapted his wording from Sallust: see Woodman, A. J., The Annals of Tacitus. Books 5–6 (Cambridge, 2016), 240 Google Scholar; cf. Tac. Hist. 2.42.2.

³³ For similar fighting filler in battle descriptions in messenger speeches in tragedy, tending to confirm the origins in Homer of those in prose as well, see Aesch. Pers. 278–9, 411–26, 459–64; Eur. Supp. 674–9, 684–94.

³⁴ Cf. Il. 13.131–3 = 16.215–7; for more such repeated formulae, see Pritchett, W. K., ‘The Pitched Battle’, in The Greek State at War, 5 vols. (Berkeley, CA, 1971–91)Google Scholar, iv.27–9. For the depiction of single combat in Homer, see Fenik (n. 29).

³⁵ For topoi and generic fighting filler, see Paul (n. 3), 309–10; Gerlinger, S., Römische Schlachtenrhetorik. Unglaubwürdige Elemente in Schlachtendarstellungen, speziell bei Caesar, Sallust und Tacitus (Heidelberg, 2008)Google Scholar; Woodman, A. J., ‘Self-Imitation and the Substance of History: Tacitus, Annals 1.61–5 and Histories 2.70, 5.14–15’, in Tacitus Reviewed (Oxford, 1998), 70–85 Google Scholar (first published in Woodman, T. and West, D. [eds.], Creative Imitation and Latin Literature [Cambridge, 1979], 143–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 231–5; about Tacitus borrowing from himself); Gowing (n. 17), 212–16; Whitby (n. 3), 57–8; Whately (n. 3; Procopius borrowing from himself), 203–9; and see especially the magnificent catalogues of Livy's military topoi in Oakley (n. 10), i.84, and the general indices of Oakley's four volumes s.v. ‘topoi and commonplace ideas’. For battle description as a school exercise, Woodman (n. 3), 89–90 with n. 78; Harto Trujillo (n. 11), 84; Whately (n. 3), 15–18.

³⁶ Oakley (n. 10), ad loc. Livy 8.38.11, and Koon, –S., Infantry Combat in Livy's Battle Narratives (Oxford, 2010), 13 Google Scholar n. 91, for the topos of striking with shields; for the broad truth of such descriptions, see ibid., 27–8.

³⁷ Zielinski, T., ‘Die Behandlung gleichzeitiger Ereignisse in antiken Epos’, Philologus Suppl. 8.3 (1901), 407–49Google Scholar. For the state of the Zielinski controversy, with sound criticism, see Clay (n. 29), 30–6.

³⁸ Walsh, P. G., Livy. His Historical Aims and Methods (Cambridge, 1961), 197–8Google Scholar, noticed this habit in Livy, but the pattern applies more widely through ancient battle description. There are exceptions: in Diod. Sic. 19.40–3 (the Battle of Gabiene), the flying column that Antigonus sends against Eumenes’ baggage (19.42.2–4) is forgotten when the narrative turns to other things (a cavalry combat, an infantry combat), but turns out later in the battle description (19.43.7) to be decisive; cf. Polyb. 1.27.6–1.28.7, 3.71–4; Livy 10.29.8–11.

³⁹ For these structures in Homer, see Latacz (n. 28), 77; Mueller, M., The Iliad (London, 1984), 95–101 Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ An illustration is the limited number of examples available to Sabin for analysis under the rubric of ‘manoeuvre’ in P. Sabin, ‘Land Battles [in the Hellenistic World and the Roman Republic]’, in Sabin, van Wees, and Whitby (n. 3), i.409–13. But ancient generals’ interest in tactical deployment and aggressive manoeuvre was itself a historical phenomenon, subject to waxing and waning over time. The era of Justinian may witness an increase: see e.g. Procop. 1.14.44–7, with Whately (n. 3), 190–5.

⁴¹ See also Polyb. 2.67, 5.85; Dion. Hist. Ant. Rom. 9.11.

⁴² Oakley (n. 10), ad loc. Livy 6.8.6.

⁴³ The implications of Onasander 10, who concentrates narrowly upon drill, conflict with those of Veg. Mil. 1.9–19, 1.26, and 2.23, where drill is just one small part of a long programme of training, and seems to have no precedence over swimming, slinging, etc.

⁴⁴ Livy 24.14.6 and see Oakley (n. 10), ad loc. Livy 7.12.4 and 8.36.9. See also Livy 42.47.5; Polyb. 36.9.9; Tac. Ann. 2.5.3, 2.88.1; Arr. Anab. 3.10.1–2.

⁴⁵ There was an ancient controversy about the value of winning by stratagem: see Lendon (n. 25), 86–8, 207–8; Lendon, J. E., Song of Wrath. The Peloponnesian War Begins (New York, 2010), 81–2Google Scholar, adding Polyb. 3.81. The tactical ambitions of ancient generals were further reduced if the general himself decided to fight with his own hands and display his own courage, which naturally reduced his ability to control the battle after its opening (Onasander 33). On this habit, see below, n. 52.

⁴⁶ Enn. Ann. 493V, with Woodman, A. J., Velleius Paterculus. The Caesarian and Augustan Narrative (2.41–93) (Cambridge, 1983), 264 Google Scholar, for many parallels, adding Livy 9.6.13.

⁴⁷ On disorder, see Goldmann, B., Einheitlichkeit und Eigenständigkeit der Historia Romana des Appian (Hildesheim, 1988), 69–70 Google Scholar; Lendon, J. E., ‘The Rhetoric of Combat: Greek Military Theory and Roman Culture in Julius Caesar's Battle Descriptions’, ClAnt 18 (1999), 282–3Google Scholar, 287; Rance, P., ‘Narses and the Battle of Taginae (Busta Gallorum) 552: Procopius and Sixth-Century Warfare’, Historia 54 (2005), 459 Google Scholar; Rey, F. Echeverría, Ciudadanos, campesinos y soldados. El naciemiento de la ‘pólis’ griega y la teoría de la ‘revolución hoplitica’ (Madrid, 2008), 170 Google Scholar, 172, 177, 180; Whately (n. 3), 26, 89–92, 203; cf. Lucian, Ver. hist. 1.18.

⁴⁸ Thuc. 5.10.6; Diod. Sic. 14.104.4; Livy 29.2.12-13.

⁴⁹ On the tradition of Greek tactical writing, see Wheeler, E., ‘Aelianus Tacticus: A Phalanx of Problems’, JRA 29 (2016), 575–83Google Scholar. In the first century bc, Asclepiodotus (drawing, it is believed, on the lost tactical work of the second-century bc Posidonius), in the most accessible edition ( Illinois Greek Club, Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, Onasander [Cambridge, MA, 1923]Google Scholar), out of some forty-four pages of Greek, only has five pages (313–23) actually addressing moving troops over ground.

⁵⁰ Thuc. 5.71-2; Xen. Anab. 3.4.19; App. B Civ. 4.111.

⁵¹ On Greek awards for courage, see W. K. Pritchett, ‘Aristeia in Greek Warfare’, in Pritchett (n. 34), ii.276–90, with Lendon (n. 25), 403–4; on Roman, see Maxfield, V. A., The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (Berkeley, CA, 1981)Google Scholar, with Lendon (n. 25), 374 n. 23, 383 n. 19.

⁵² Criticism of commanders' fighting with their own hands, Lendon (n. 25), 148, 348 n. 10; on Romans showing wounds, see Leigh, M., ‘Wounding and Popular Rhetoric at Rome’, BICS 40 (1995), 195–215 Google Scholar; on spoils on houses, see Rawson, E., ‘The Antiquarian Tradition: Spoils and Representations of Foreign Armour’, in Roman Culture and Society (Oxford, 1991), 583–85Google Scholar. Using evidence from battle descriptions in the historians, I follow others in thinking that personal fighting by the supreme commander of an army was usual (if sometimes argued against) in Greek and early Hellenistic armies, and I also think (controversially) that it became so again in later Roman times: see Lendon (n. 25), 84–9, 119, 133–8, 259–60, 290–305, 360 n. 17.

⁵³ On Roman single combat, see Oakley, S. P., ‘Single Combat in the Roman Republic’, CQ 35 (1985) 392–410 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with Oakley (n. 10), ii.123–5, and Lendon (n. 25), 172–7; Martino, J., ‘Single Combat and the Aeneid ’, Arethusa 41 (2008), 411–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For individual heroism, see Goldsworthy, A., The Roman Army at War, 100 bc–ad 200 (Oxford, 1996), 264–82Google Scholar; Ward, G., ‘The Roman Battlefield: Individual Exploits in Warfare of the Roman Republic’, in Riess, W. and Fagan, G. G. (eds.), The Topography of Violence in the Greco-Roman World (Ann Arbor, MI, 2016), 299–324Google Scholar. On exempla, see Nolan (n. 14). On Roman generals imitating Alexander, see Lendon (n. 25), 259–60, 439–40.

⁵⁴ Clay (n. 29), 61.

⁵⁵ On Homeric catalogues, see Sammons, B., The Art and Rhetoric of the Homeric Catalogue (Oxford, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, with 13–38 and 158–64 on individuals who appear only in catalogues, and not in the narrative. On Homeric catalogues in Herodotus and Thucydides, see Hornblower, S., A Commentary on Thucydides, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1991–2008)Google Scholar, iii.654–60. Aeschylus’ account of the Seven against Thebes in their stations before the gates of the city (Sept. 375–652), or some similar passage in a lost tragedy, may constitute a bridge between the Homeric catalogue and the array in Herodotus.

⁵⁶ Cf. Polyb. 5.53 for a considerable description of an array for a battle that never actually happens.

⁵⁷ Herodotus’ interest in the Plataea array was augmented by the fact that the whole array was a snapshot of the relative standing in honour of the Greeks allies: see Lendon (n. 45), 40–2, and the argument of the Athenians and Tegeans over their places in it (Hdt. 9.26–7).

⁵⁸ Continued Homeric influence is hinted at by the fact that a catalogue (i.e. a list of contingents without their positions) can replace an array (Hdt. 8.42–8 with 8.84–5; Xen. Hell. 4.3.15–21); and that a detailed catalogue of troops, by armament and origins, but without locating them by their place in the line, can precede a description of their positions (as in Polyb. 2.65–6, 5.79–82).

⁵⁹ Diod. Sic. 19.27–9, 19.82–3, 20.49–50 (on Diodorus’ arrays, see Alganza Roldán and Villena Ponsoda [n. 7]); Livy 37.39–40.

⁶⁰ For the ancient sense that the length of a battle description ought to be in proportion to the importance of the battle, see Dion. Hal. Thuc. 343.

⁶¹ Hellenistic generals, quoted in Diod. Sic. 19.27.1. For Homeric arraying, see Lendon (n. 25), 28–32; for subsequent competition in arraying, see ibid., 84–5, 105, 144–9.

⁶² For the tradition of ‘tactics,’ see Lendon (n. 47), 282–5.

⁶³ Woodman (n. 10), 268; Oakley (n. 10), ad loc. Livy 9.17.15.

⁶⁴ Or the author can intervene explicitly to declare a draw: Hdt. 8.11, 8.16; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 2.54.4. In a variation, Procopius puts a weighing passage in the mouth of a character, Belisarius (5.27.25–9).

⁶⁵ Van Wees (n. 28 [1988]), esp. 15–18.

⁶⁶ Gaida (n. 5), 9–13, gathers battles won by tricks in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Appian was particularly fond of relating stratagems (see Hahn, I., ‘Appianus Tacticus’, AAntHung 18 [1970], 295–7Google Scholar), as was Procopius (see Whately [n. 3], 100).

⁶⁷ E.g. Arr. Anab. 1.16.1; Diod. Sic. 20.52.2; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 6.12.5; Procop. 1.14.50; cf. Plathner (n. 5), 12–13, for Livy.

⁶⁸ Levene (n. 21), 266–95.

⁶⁹ Gaida (n. 5), 8, makes a list of such cases in Dionysius of Halicarnassus. For Livy, see Bartolomé Gómez (n. 5), 100–9.

⁷⁰ E.g. Livy 21.55.8; Tac. Agr. 36.1–2; Amm. Marc. 16.12.47–8.