What do you think?
Rate this book
Aeneas Tacticus, Asclepiodotus, and Onasander
Aeneas was perhaps a general, and certainly author of several didactic military works of which the sole survivor is that on defence against siege. From it we can deduce that he was a Peloponnesian of the fourth century BCE who served in the Aegean and in Asia Minor and composed the work from direct knowledge and from oral and some literary tradition, possibly in 357-6 BCE. It is devoted entirely to defence of fortified places and deals specially with use of defending troops; defensive positions; morale; resistance to attacks and to actual assault; guards; obviation of treachery and revolution; and other subjects.
Asclepiodotus, philosopher and pupil of the Stoic Posidonius, wrote a rather dry but ordered work on Tactics as if a subject of the lecture room, based not on personal experience but on earlier manuals. His main subjects were the branches of a military force; infantry; cavalry; chariots; elephants; arms; maneuvers; military evolutions; marching formation. The work ends with words of command.
Onasander (Onasandros), a Platonic philosopher, dedicated his work "The General" to the Roman Veranius, who was a consul in 49 CE. The work deals in plain style with the sort of morals and social and military qualities and attitudes expected of a virtuous and militarily successful general. It is also concerned with such matters as his choice of staff; attitude to war; religious duties; military formations; conduct in allied and hostile lands; difficult terrains; camps; drill; spies; guards; deserters; battle formations and maneuvers; and other matters, ending with conduct after victory.
Asclepiodotus, philosopher and pupil of the Stoic Posidonius, wrote a rather dry but ordered work on Tactics as if a subject of the lecture room, based not on personal experience but on earlier manuals. His main subjects were the branches of a military force; infantry; cavalry; chariots; elephants; arms; maneuvers; military evolutions; marching formation. The work ends with words of command.
Onasander (Onasandros), a Platonic philosopher, dedicated his work "The General" to the Roman Veranius, who was a consul in 49 CE. The work deals in plain style with the sort of morals and social and military qualities and attitudes expected of a virtuous and militarily successful general. It is also concerned with such matters as his choice of staff; attitude to war; religious duties; military formations; conduct in allied and hostile lands; difficult terrains; camps; drill; spies; guards; deserters; battle formations and maneuvers; and other matters, ending with conduct after victory.
544 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1923
1 person is currently reading
58 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 23, 2021
I forget where I first saw a reference to it, but I somehow in my reading became interested in the short work by Aeneas on siegecraft. Searching for a good version of it, I stumbled across this slightly odd compilation of Greek writers on the topic of tactics, available from the Internet Archive. Usually I'd record anthologised books individually, but these are all somewhat odd ducks, this is a nice volume with good editorial notes, and while the collection's title is a little unimaginative there is a coherent theme across the texts -- so here we are.
On the Defence of Fortified Positions
by Aeneas (tr. Illinois Faculty Greek Club)
Composed around 360 BC, this is heralded as the first treatise on tactics. The author, Aeneas, is said to have written extensively on this topic, composing a well-regarded general body of work on all aspects of warfare, which was epitomised by later commanders (notably Kineas, a servant of Pyrrhus), but, in the tragedy that is our classical inheritance, this single short work on defending fortified cities is all that remains. In a sad coincidence, at several points in the text Aeneas refuses to repeat advice that he has given elsewhere, referring the reader to his other work.
It's fairly interesting material. Aeneas has a no-nonsense approach -- there is no abstract theorising, no long-winded commentary on other writers, and no literary aspiration. Aeneas is writing for leaders who have to defend a city, and he ploughs straight into pure practical advice. About half of that advice is suggestions for how to defend your walls and frustrate the designs of a besieging army or nearby force, the other half is focused on how to deal with insider threats. While siege engines and assaults are important and discussed, the real risks seem to be that conspirators inside the city will stage a revolt, smuggle the enemy in or send intelligence to the foe. Aeneas tackles all of this with practical stratagems for controlling possible traitors and maintaining morale, illustrated with some historical examples. There are some interesting details to this, like his passage on cryptography, when he introduces the idea of a substitution cipher, or his detailed discussion of what people have done historically to extract the bolt-pin that locks the bar in place on a barred gate.
There are also occasional fragments of real novelty. Some of the devices he describes in most detail seem to be his own inventions, and demonstrate an engineer's mindset. In one particularly ingenious passage, he describes how to use paired water-clocks as a timing channel to signal complex agreed information across a distance where only the presence or absence of a raised torch might be discerned. I shouldn't be surprised -- the idea that ancient generals were meatheads mostly doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and men in Aeneas' time had a lot of reason to think carefully about military innovation.
Tactics
by Asclepiodotus (tr. C. H. Oldfather & W. A. Oldfather)
A couple of centuries later, what we have in Asclepiodotus is extremely far removed from the grounded, practical advice of Aeneas. It's not clear whether the author ever saw combat, but the text that comes down to us, whilst it names itself Tactics, is actually more like a drill manual. It is obsessed with specific (and sometimes spurious) terminology, the correct numbers for formations, and how orders should be given and understood in specific detail. There is essentially no content here which addresses engagement with the enemy, a situation that the author seems to consider mostly irrelevant to his topic.
The introduction and commentary is already pretty scathing about Asclepiodotus' work, but it's hard to disagree with the impression that this rather philosophical take on tactics is a degenerate and inferior theoretical understanding of its material. There is some value in drill exercises -- smooth manoeuvring under pressure can be tactically handy -- but the exclusion of anything else severely limits the worth of those described herein. The author's rather dry explanations of various terms and categories are however helpful as a primer on ancient Greek warfare.
The General
by Onasander (tr. W. A. Oldfather, A. S. Pease & J. B. Titchener)
Onasander, writing in around 53 AD, returns to a more approachable form. His focus is the military commander -- Onasander notes several of the necessary or desirable traits of a general, but also one strong disqualifier: the man must not work in finance.
As well as detailing the traits of a good general, Onasander explains what the general should do in various situations. This is actually most of the body of the work, and is advice compiled mostly from historic examples -- though he doesn't explain his sources, there is a very obvious indebtedness to Xenophon, among others. While the advice is arranged in general themes, it is mostly delivered as short one-page treatises on a particular situation a general might face or a course of action Onasander proscribes, with a little justification to explain his recommendation. These are quite easy to read, so the text flies by.
While I'm by no means a military commander, most of Onasander's recommendations seem sound, and from the introduction it seems like he is mostly criticised (rather unfairly, given his disclaimer at the beginning) for not being original rather than being wrong. The morals are of a pragmatic soldierly form -- Onasander admits the use of deceit and certain kinds of underhandedness in tackling the foe and raising morale, but otherwise urges the general to avoid cruelty, keep his word, and to be magnanimous in victory.
On the Defence of Fortified Positions
by Aeneas (tr. Illinois Faculty Greek Club)
Composed around 360 BC, this is heralded as the first treatise on tactics. The author, Aeneas, is said to have written extensively on this topic, composing a well-regarded general body of work on all aspects of warfare, which was epitomised by later commanders (notably Kineas, a servant of Pyrrhus), but, in the tragedy that is our classical inheritance, this single short work on defending fortified cities is all that remains. In a sad coincidence, at several points in the text Aeneas refuses to repeat advice that he has given elsewhere, referring the reader to his other work.
It's fairly interesting material. Aeneas has a no-nonsense approach -- there is no abstract theorising, no long-winded commentary on other writers, and no literary aspiration. Aeneas is writing for leaders who have to defend a city, and he ploughs straight into pure practical advice. About half of that advice is suggestions for how to defend your walls and frustrate the designs of a besieging army or nearby force, the other half is focused on how to deal with insider threats. While siege engines and assaults are important and discussed, the real risks seem to be that conspirators inside the city will stage a revolt, smuggle the enemy in or send intelligence to the foe. Aeneas tackles all of this with practical stratagems for controlling possible traitors and maintaining morale, illustrated with some historical examples. There are some interesting details to this, like his passage on cryptography, when he introduces the idea of a substitution cipher, or his detailed discussion of what people have done historically to extract the bolt-pin that locks the bar in place on a barred gate.
There are also occasional fragments of real novelty. Some of the devices he describes in most detail seem to be his own inventions, and demonstrate an engineer's mindset. In one particularly ingenious passage, he describes how to use paired water-clocks as a timing channel to signal complex agreed information across a distance where only the presence or absence of a raised torch might be discerned. I shouldn't be surprised -- the idea that ancient generals were meatheads mostly doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and men in Aeneas' time had a lot of reason to think carefully about military innovation.
Tactics
by Asclepiodotus (tr. C. H. Oldfather & W. A. Oldfather)
A couple of centuries later, what we have in Asclepiodotus is extremely far removed from the grounded, practical advice of Aeneas. It's not clear whether the author ever saw combat, but the text that comes down to us, whilst it names itself Tactics, is actually more like a drill manual. It is obsessed with specific (and sometimes spurious) terminology, the correct numbers for formations, and how orders should be given and understood in specific detail. There is essentially no content here which addresses engagement with the enemy, a situation that the author seems to consider mostly irrelevant to his topic.
The introduction and commentary is already pretty scathing about Asclepiodotus' work, but it's hard to disagree with the impression that this rather philosophical take on tactics is a degenerate and inferior theoretical understanding of its material. There is some value in drill exercises -- smooth manoeuvring under pressure can be tactically handy -- but the exclusion of anything else severely limits the worth of those described herein. The author's rather dry explanations of various terms and categories are however helpful as a primer on ancient Greek warfare.
The General
by Onasander (tr. W. A. Oldfather, A. S. Pease & J. B. Titchener)
Onasander, writing in around 53 AD, returns to a more approachable form. His focus is the military commander -- Onasander notes several of the necessary or desirable traits of a general, but also one strong disqualifier: the man must not work in finance.
For these men must have petty minds; excited over gain and worried about the means of getting money, they have acquired absolutely none of the noble habits of a general.
As well as detailing the traits of a good general, Onasander explains what the general should do in various situations. This is actually most of the body of the work, and is advice compiled mostly from historic examples -- though he doesn't explain his sources, there is a very obvious indebtedness to Xenophon, among others. While the advice is arranged in general themes, it is mostly delivered as short one-page treatises on a particular situation a general might face or a course of action Onasander proscribes, with a little justification to explain his recommendation. These are quite easy to read, so the text flies by.
While I'm by no means a military commander, most of Onasander's recommendations seem sound, and from the introduction it seems like he is mostly criticised (rather unfairly, given his disclaimer at the beginning) for not being original rather than being wrong. The morals are of a pragmatic soldierly form -- Onasander admits the use of deceit and certain kinds of underhandedness in tackling the foe and raising morale, but otherwise urges the general to avoid cruelty, keep his word, and to be magnanimous in victory.
August 8, 2016
Having said all I'm going to say about Aeneas Tacticus, pretty incidentally interesting, and skipping over Asclepiodotus' philosophic take on tactics, I come to Onasander's how to be a good general given to Quintus Veranius who died in command in Britain. It seems commonsensical to me in ancient circumstances and still possibly applicable in certain circumstances today though I've difficulty thinking what these might be. His advice was largely ignored in the capture of Fallujah; and in the invasion of the Ukraine, there's a pretence there's no Russian general whatsoever. The caliphate's general stays safely put if subject to American drones while deploying suicidal fifth columnists infiltrating under the guise of refugees. It's still a good read.
November 27, 2024
Most of the writings, particularly Asclepiodotus are ponderous and nothing more than a list of military matters without any great insight backed by experience. Aeneas had the experience, but his work deals mainly with holding and capture of fortified places.
Glad to have finally read this book after owning it for probably 30 years, but it did not provide any great insights into ancient warfare.
Glad to have finally read this book after owning it for probably 30 years, but it did not provide any great insights into ancient warfare.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews