Bernard Norcott-mahany's Reviews > The Persian Expedition

I figured it was about time that I finally read Xenophon's "Anabasis." When I was in HS, students studying Greek either learned enough Greek to do some Homer, more challenging, but more fun, or Xenophon, who has a limited vocabulary, focus and a plain style which makes him good for people learing basic Attic Greek.
That said, I would have to class this with Caesar's "Gallic Wars," which do the same for Latin (as a Latin student, I was prepped to read Caesar). For Caesar, the choice of a limited vocabulary and plain style was a rhetorical one. By casting his commentaries on the war in a plain style, he cast himself as a plain, no-nonsense kind of guy, not interested in big words and a florid style, but in stating the facts. Of course, this "no-spin" style of Caesar allowed him to cover up what could be considered in Rome as crimes. Caesar also was a proponent of trimming the Latin language towards plainness, and there was a philosophical debate on rhetoric going on at that time. Ultimately Caesar lost that fight (the middle style of Cicero and the Asiatic style of Seneca and later authors won the day).
I'm not sure what Xenophon's purpose was in using this style. It may hide all sorts of embarrassment -- Xenophon was joining with Athens' traditional enemy, Sparta, in going to help Cyrus usurp the Persian throne (the "anabasis" of the title refers to the march up country to Cunaxa where the big battle was fought and where Cyrus and the Greeks lost), and then, in failing to do so. Taking a neutral style, Xenophon hides his own culpability in the expedition. It also tends to downplay his own heroism in extricating the Greeks from a difficult position (hundreds of miles inside enemy territory).
Though there may have been rhetorical reasons for the very plain style, I think that it ends up turning what could be a ripping good yarn into a rather tedious statement. Think of Steven Wright reading the "Gettysburg Address."
There were some exciting moments -- the battle of Cunaxa, e.g. and there are moments that are rather thoughtful (Xenophon's analysis of what made Cyrus a more suitable ruler than Artaxerxes), but I mainly recall, "then we traveled on foot for 50 miles until we came to the river ..." over and over again. I'm glad I read the book (another book off my bucket list), but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is not interested in military history.