Cyropaedia is a biography of Cyrus The Great, written by Xenophon, the Greek writer and soldier of fortune who also wrote Anabasis. Cyrus The Great united the Persian empire and installed institutions that gave it the strength to endure. This book chronicles his brilliance as a general, administrator, and king.
The reason of this public sanction for [hunting] is not far to seek; the king leads just as he does in war, hunting in person at the head of the field, and making his men follow, because it is felt that the exercise itself is the best possible training for the needs of war. It accustoms a man to early rising; it hardens him to endure heat and cold; it teaches him to march and to run at the top of his speed; he must perforce learn to let fly arrow and javelin the moment the quarry is across his path; and, above all, the edge of his spirit must need be sharpened by encountering any of the mightier beasts; he must deal his stroke when the creature closes, and stand on guard when it makes its rush: indeed, it would be hard to find a case in war that has not its parallel in the chase.
[…]
…never put off the collecting of supplies until the day of need, make the season of your abundance provide against the time of dearth. You will gain better terms from those on whom you must depend if you are not thought to be in straits, and, what is more, you will be free from blame in the eyes of your soldiers. That in itself will make you more respected; wherever you desire to help or to hurt, your troops will follow you with greater readiness, so long as they have all they need, and your words, you may be sure, will carry the greater weight the fuller your display of power for weal or woe.
[…]
When the interests of mankind are at stake, they will obey with joy the man whom they believe to be wiser than themselves.
[…]
One thing you must ever bear in mind: if you wish your men to follow you, remember that they expect you to plan for them. Hence you must never know a careless mood; if it be night, you must consider what your troops shall do when it is day; if day, how the night had best be spent.
Many monologues are given on how a man should conduct himself as a soldier, whether at peace or at war. Most of these were uttered by Cyrus himself. He was a master of the mind, using the weapon of psychology as much as he used his sword. He would effortlessly formulate strategies for situations never before encountered, even inventing a deadlier form of chariot.
Such is the ordinance of God: those who will not work out their own salvation he gives into the hands of other men to bear rule over them.
[…]
When fortune comes to us, if we guard her with discretion, we may live to grow old in peace, but if we are insatiate, if we use and abuse our pleasures, chasing first one and then another, we may well fear lest that fate be ours which, the proverb tells us, falls on those mariners who cannot forgo their voyages in the pursuit of wealth, and one day the deep sea swallows them. Thus has many a warrior achieved one victory only to clutch at another and lose the first.
[..]
I begin to understand, Cyrus, how it is that while we have more goblets and more gold, more apparel and more wealth than you, yet we ourselves are not worth as much. We are always trying to increased what we possess, but you seem to set your hearts on perfecting your own souls.
[…]
…men in the mass, when aflame with courage, are irresistible, and when their hearts fail them, the more numerous they are the worse their panic that seizes them.
[…]
Those who trust each other will stand firm and fight without flinching, but when confidence has gone no man thinks of anything but flight.
[…]
…the more a man possesses, the more there are to envy him, to plot against him, and be his enemies.
[…]
Cyrus was convinced that no one has a right to rule who is not superior to his subjects.
The book aims to describe the balance between work and leisure:
Yet I foresee that if we betake ourselves to the life of indolence and luxury, the life of the degenerate who think that labour is the worst of evils and freedom from toil the height of happiness, the day will come, and speedily, when we shall be unworthy of ourselves, and with the loss of honour will come the loss of wealth. Once to have been valiant is not enough; no man can keep his valour unless he watch over it to the end. As the arts decay through neglect, as the body, once healthy and alert, will grow weak through sloth and indolence, even so the powers of the spirit, temperance, self-control, and courage, if we grow slack in training, fall back once more to rottenness and death. We must watch ourselves; we must not surrender to the sweetness of the day. It is a great work, methinks, to found an empire, but a far greater to keep it safe. To seize it may be the fruit of daring and daring only, but to hold it is impossible without self-restraint and self-command and endless care.
[…]
…a man’s enjoyment of all good things is in exact proportion to the pains he has undergone to gain them. Toil is the seasoning of delight; without desire and longing, no dish, however costly, could be sweet.
[…]
Self-restraint, he believed, would best be cultivated if he made men see in himself one who could not be dragged from the pursuit of virtue by the pleasure of the moment, one who chose to toil first for the happy-hearted joys that go hand-in-hand with beauty and nobleness.
[…]
“I assure you, my friend,” said Pheraulas, “the possession of riches is nothing like so sweet as the loss of them is painful. And here is a proof for you: no rich man lies awake from pure joy at his wealth, but did you ever know a man who could close his eyes when he was losing?”
The book was surprisingly readable in spite of the meandering sentences, making it far easier to tackle than The Landmark Thucydides. The crawling bits were broken up with supreme wisdom that made it serve as a manual on how to run the empire that is a man’s life. Don’t expect too much in terms of battle action or excitement, but if you have enjoyed other Greek classics, this is worth a read.
Read More: “Cyropaedia” on Amazon
I’m going to check this out, definitely. Interesting how Xenophon used “monologues” as a way of conveying ideas….shows his education in the rhetorical arts.
Another interesting thing I learned from this review: although the Greeks and Persians are often described as enemies, in fact there seems to have been a large amount of inter-cultural sharing between the two nations. And mutual respect. We only know the ancient Persians through the eyes of Greeks…very little ancient Persian original documentary evidence has survived.
Greek considered Persian to be intelligent, but cowards. They considered Macedon brave warriors but little dedicated to science and knowledge. Of course, only Greeks possessed both bravery and intelligence (according to them). Mixture of Persian and Greek culture was promoted and practiced by Alexander, but it didn’t have too much widespread support. However helenized kingdoms later founded by Diadocchi definitely did contain both influences, particularly when it comes to army ( mixture of hoplites, eastern style skirmishers, elephants etc, and later even Roman influences were added to infantry).
Their peaks were separated in time. During Achaemenid rule, the Greeks were only a loose organization of city-states, compared to the vast unified Persian empire. You could draw parallels between the British Empire and the fledgling colonies of early America.
The Persians respected the Greeks, sure, but they never really considered them a threat. Perhaps this was a mistake though, as their arrogance cost them a few victories.
The *real* inter-superpower war came later, with the Romans. The Greeks and Romans allied in the west and pitted themselves against Persia. That was when Persia really started taking hits and weakening, eventually setting the stage for the Muslim conquest of Persia and the end of classical Persian civilization.
Greek did not ally with the Roman, they were subdued. Classic Persia was conquered by Alexander, but later another Persian empire was formed, the Parthia, (later Sassanid empire). Although Romans had successes here and there against the Parthians and Sassanids, but strategically never completely defeated them. Persia remained a threat to Rome until it fell to Barbarians.
Roman infantry (which composed most of the fighting forces of Romans, and did 90% of the fight) found itself constantly harassed by eastern ranged troops, and missile cavalry. Battle of Carrhae is an example of that.
The Sassanid Persians continued to fight the Emperors in Constantinople for another century or so after the Western Empire’s collapse. They were at each other’s throats constantly, and this was part of why Rome weakened.
It’s in fact a commonality throughout history that Western militaries tend not to do well against horse archers- as shown at Carrhae and other places. The mongols destruction in Eastern Europe is another good example.
It wasn’t until the rise of coordinated firearm volley formations that this dynamic was eclipsed.
It is very interesting thing how military history has seen many examples where armies returned to older ways of fighting in order to compensate for new circumstances. Return of horse archers in Europe (with large Muslim armies), or when Napoleon brought back horse lancers in combat, which proved very successful. Also, Napoleon brought back skirmishers to his grande armee after almost 200 years of disappearance of this practice. Truly a great military leader he was, possibly the greatest.
Persians also introduced Rome to the Mithraic mysteries and Zoroastrianism which became an integral part of Roman life, even a rival to Christianity at one stage.
Mithraism was a male only cult which was practised mainly by the military in those days. Females were forbidden to take part.
When I read about old kings,generals, khans and emperors I begin to curse the 21 century more and more. Where are men like Thomas Jefferson, Caesar, Cyrus, Napoleon,Genghis Khan today ? Each of them is a golden star and will be remembered forever but who wants to remember Obama, Justin Bieber or etc. ? What have they accomplished ? Which boy would see them as a role model ?
New times bring new circumstances. It is no secret drones will soon reach battlefields, both on ground and in the skies. First man to master these devices, and exploit them for strategic victories, might prove to be the new master of the warfare, and who knows, maybe even seize the power, just like Napoleon, Hitler, Or Caesar did. None of them won victories by being concerned of methods, but being concerned of goals.
Truth is, that in atm most powerful armed force on Earth, the US Army, is lead by careerists, populated by bushwhackers, and pursues the goals of capitalist tyrants. No more days of gentlemen on the fields, like Joshua Lawrence eh…
There is no difference between the two.
I have numerous books that could say to the contrary. Admirals and generals still write down their thoughts, and they are no less amazing. It is easy to think it was better in days of old, but with the world so much smaller other things are harder.
There were businesses and bureaucrats even back then that these men you claim to be so great worked for and with. Our weapons today are just scarier in that we take less time to be trained, to kill significantly more people.
Gone are the days of knights trained from birth, and potentially soon are the days when men fight amongst each other without mechanical nightmares doing the deeds for them.
I agree with you. But which type of warfare is manly and glorious ? Is it manly to sit behind a screen and use a joystick to kill other men ? Which one is more manly : Platonic love or normal sex ? Although the intellectual and mental ways have their advantages it must be combined with physical aspects.
One of the last commanders to lead army personally i think would be Frederick II the Great. He also had close encounters with death on the battlefield. Very brave politician, leader, and commander, and his bravery was awarded with great twist of fate called “miracle of the house of Brandenburg”. Google it.
Gustavus Adolphus II according to official history died leading a cavalry charge. Indeed a glorious death. Although i think that in reality, he did not exactly lead it, but again, he was one with the army that he created.
Today, the practice is long gone. All land troops are, or are becoming merely support. Infantry has support role since WW II ended. Unmanned aircraft will most definitely replace manned ones. Supremacy over the skies means supremacy in the war. It is improvement over past methods, it is rational, it is advanced.
It is impossible to stop wheel of history. Communists invented this phrase, couple of decades before wheel of history crushed them too. People who are constantly fighting against the technological advancement and evolution of technology and it’s impact on everyday life, always live bitter life, and die bitter men.
As military leaders themselves used to speak to their soldiers: “deal with it, adapt to it, and then start loving it”.
Purpose of technology is to give you advantage over your enemies. If all technology development stops, then it means only that everyone stopped making an effort – and that is not alpha.
Only thing that separates great men from scumbags, is principles that lead them on their conquests (and i also mean conquests in love, knowledge, influence, power, wealth).
This must be a build-up to coverage of the great Emperor Darius, aka ‘Daryush’ 😉 …
Sounds like a great read in the vein of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations.
Roosh I made a comment in your Mark Minter Phony post that I wish you would take a look at — it’s my reply to Uncle Elmer. It’s classically themed!
I might just pick this one up. Cyrus is another individual I wish to profile, and his establishment of the Persian Empire was of macrohistorical importance.
Alexander himself admired Cyrus greatly, and there is little doubt that Cyrus was the better king. Unfortunately most of what we know comes from his enemies.
But what does it say about twerking?
he was killed by a woman in battle. that doesn’t seem terribly alpha, somehow.
It’s disputed how he actually died. There are many different accounts.
One must consider that the ancient greek often wrote ”false accounts” to dishonor the enemy by reporting how unmanly or barbarian they were. Ancient Romans used the same tactics too. The enemies of Caesar taunted him as a fag just because he stayed too long in Bythynia with the King Nicomedes. Although one could speculate about the sexuality of Caesar it is very unlikely.
I was wondering if you write something about the Persians given your namesake(s) lol. I was one of the few kids who liked the Persians almost as much as more well covered civilizations like the Greeks or Egyptians. One major difference between them and the Greeks: the Persian noblemen had dozens if not hundreds of wives and concubines, whereas the latter were strictly monogamous. Theirs was a very hierarchical society compared to Greece. They had great beards too lol.
Cyrus’ attitude towards wealth makes sense when you consider how little wealth could do for people before the latter 20th Century, no matter how much gold and and land and how many slaves, cattle, warriors and concubines they accumulated. Cyrus might have had a fortune by the standards of his time, but he lived under conditions in his palaces which we would consider camping. And his harem must have reeked for several days every month when his concubines’ menstrual cycles synchronized, as happens when fertile women live together.
Even in the early 19th Century, one of the richest men in the world died from a bacterial infection which we can cure today with antibiotics which a waitress could pay for by dipping into a day’s tip money. He must have owned chests full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck, but a lot of good they did him then.
No, in today’s world, wealth actually makes a vastly greater difference in people’s quality of life than it did in previous centuries. Google economist Brad DeLong’s essay, “Slouching Towards Utopia,” to see how much better we live now than how Americans lived a century ago, despite the ignorant propaganda about how the Federal Reserve has destroyed our living standards since it began in 1913.
You completely missed the point of this article. Stop viewing things purely pragmatically but I suppose that’s what an atheist does.
The point is the ideal that Cyrus represents not his literal physical existence.
He also completely missed the fact that there are many fatal diseases that we have today who were almost non existent at Cyrus time.
The ONLY reason living standards and technology has increased over the last 100 years is because of the benevolent force of capitalism. And that is why it is right to criticise the Federal Reserve, because sound money is one of the pillars of capitalism, and if you take that pillar away, the stability of that capitalist system because less solid.
This book is emphatically NOT a biography of Cyrus the Great. It is rather an almost completely made-up account of “Cyrus” that Xenophon uses to illustrate his political teaching. It is, in effect Xenophon’s equivalent of Plato’s Republic (they were both students of Socrates and they knew each other).
The Cyropaedia has been called “the first novel” because just about every event described in it is invented. There was a real Cyrus the Great who founded the Persian Empire, but apart from that, the book is totally made up.
The reference to the Anabasis is important. That’s a true story of an expedition that Xenophon took with a later Cyrus, who was killed because of his rashness, and then Xenophon took over and saved the famous “10,000” Greeks.
The Cyropaedia presents an idealized version of the actual Cyrus whom Xenophon personally knew. For Xenophon (and most ancients), there were two peaks of human excellence: the man of action or the political man, and the contemplative man or the philosopher. Cyrus represents the peak of the first kind of life, Socrates the peak of the second.
The Cyrus presented here is an idealized, “perfect” king, the ruler par excellence without flaws. (Though quite ruthless, and quite willing to be cruel when necessary.) It is said that, just as Alexander the Great on campaign always had a copy of the Iliad in his tent, so did Scipio Africanus Major (the conqueror of Hannibal at Zamma) always have the Cyropaedia.
That said, it is indeed a truly profound work of political philosophy. It is the founding book of the “mirror of princes” genre, of which Machiavelli’s Prince is the most famous example. In fact, Machiavelli considered this the greatest book on politics ever written and refers to it more than to any other book (except Livy).
You might be interested in some thoughts I posted as guest on another blog about another passage in Xenophon which shows how Socrates conversed with a certain woman:
http://veritaslounge.com/2013/06/08/xenophons-wisdom/
In the comments, I make some observations comparing Socrates and Cyrus.
And Socrates, joking about his own lack of busyness, said, “But Theodote, it is not very easy for me to find leisure, for in fact many affairs both private and public deprive me of leisure. And I also have female friends who will not allow me to leave them day or night, since they are learning love charms and incantations from me.”
Pre-selection master.
This book is emphatically NOT a biography of Cyrus the Great. It is rather an almost completely made-up account of “Cyrus” that Xenophon uses to illustrate his political teaching. It is, in effect Xenophon’s equivalent of Plato’s Republic (they were both students of Socrates and they knew each other).
The Cyropaedia has been called “the first novel” because just about every event described in it is invented. There was a real Cyrus the Great who founded the Persian Empire, but apart from that, the book is totally made up.
The reference to the Anabasis is important. That’s a true story of an expedition that Xenophon took with a later Cyrus, who was killed because of his rashness, and then Xenophon took over and saved the famous “10,000” Greeks.
The Cyropaedia presents an idealized version of the actual Cyrus whom Xenophon personally knew. For Xenophon (and most ancients), there were two peaks of human excellence: the man of action or the political man, and the contemplative man or the philosopher. Cyrus represents the peak of the first kind of life, Socrates the peak of the second.
The Cyrus presented here is an idealized, “perfect” king, the ruler par excellence without flaws. (Though quite ruthless, and quite willing to be cruel when necessary.) It is said that, just as Alexander the Great on campaign always had a copy of the Iliad in his tent, so did Scipio Africanus Major (the conqueror of Hannibal at Zamma) always have the Cyropaedia.
That said, it is indeed a truly profound work of political philosophy. It is the founding book of the “mirror of princes” genre, of which Machiavelli’s Prince is the most famous example. In fact, Machiavelli considered this the greatest book on politics ever written and refers to it more than to any other book (except Livy).
You might be interested in some thoughts I posted as guest on another blog about another passage in Xenophon which shows how Socrates conversed with a certain woman:
http://veritaslounge.com/2013/06/08/xenophons-wisdom/
In the comments, I make some observations comparing Socrates and Cyrus.
While an excellent style and what you offer are critical areas of your achievements, it is SEO that attracts individuals in. modafinil for sale