- Source
- Polybius. Vols. 1-4. Büttner-Wobst, Theodor, editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:12.25f.1-12.25f.7
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-07
Polybius criticizes Ephorus's descriptions of land battles, such as Leuctra and Mantinea, as tactically and geographically absurd despite his understanding of naval warfare, noting that this defect is shared by Theopompus and Timaeus when they attempt detailed narratives.
δῆλον δʼ ἔσται τὸ λεγόμενον ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐκ τῶν ἐπιφερομένων, οἷον εὐθέως ἐκ τῶν συμβεβηκότων Ἐφόρῳ κατὰ τόπους τινὰς τῆς ἱστορίας. ἐκεῖνος γὰρ ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς τῶν μὲν κατὰ θάλατταν ἔργων ἐπὶ ποσὸν ὑπόνοιαν ἐσχηκέναι1 μοι δοκεῖ, τῶν δὲ κατὰ γῆν ἀγώνων ἄπειρος εἶναι τελέως.
What is being said will be even clearer from what follows, for example immediately from what happened to Ephorus in certain parts of his history. For he seems to me, in military matters, to have had some understanding of naval operations to a certain extent, but to be completely inexperienced in land battles.
τοιγαροῦν ὅταν μὲν πρὸς τὰς περὶ Κύπρον ναυμαχίας καὶ τὰς περὶ Κνίδον ἀτενίσῃ τις, αἷς ἐχρήσανθʼ οἱ βασιλέως στρατηγοὶ πρὸς Εὐαγόραν τὸν Σαλαμίνιον καὶ πάλιν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους θαυμάζειν τὸν συγγραφέα καὶ κατὰ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐμπειρίαν εἰκὸς2 καὶ πολλὰ τῶν χρησίμων ἀπενέγκασθαι πρὸς τὰς ὁμοίας περιστάσεις·
Therefore, when one directs his attention to the naval battles around Cyprus and Knidos, which the King’s generals engaged in against Evagoras of Salamis and again against the Lacedaemonians, it is natural to admire the historian both for his ability and for his experience, and to carry away many useful things for similar circumstances.
ὅταν δὲ τὴν περὶ Λεῦκτρα μάχην ἐξηγῆται Θηβαίων καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων ἢ τὴν ἐν Μαντινείᾳ πάλιν τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων, ἐν ᾗ καὶ μετήλλαξε τὸν βίον Ἐπαμινώνδας, ἐν τούτοις ἐὰν ἐπὶ τὰ κατὰ μέρος ἐπιστήσας3 τις θεωρῇ τὰς ἐκτάξεις καὶ μετατάξεις τὰς κατʼ αὐτοὺς τοὺς κινδύνους, γελοῖος φαίνεται καὶ παντελῶς ἄπειρος καὶ ἀόρατος τῶν τοιούτων ὤν.4
But when he explains the battle of Leuctra between the Thebans and Lacedaemonians, or again that of Mantinea between these same peoples, in which Epaminondas also ended his life, in these cases if someone, having directed his attention to the details, contemplates the deployments and redeployments during the actual battles, he appears ridiculous and completely inexperienced, being blind to such matters.
ὁ μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς Λεύκτροις κίνδυνος ἁπλοῦς γεγονὼς καὶ καθʼ ἕν τι μέρος τῆς δυνάμεως οὐ λίαν ἐκφανῆ ποιεῖ τὴν τοῦ συγγραφέως ἀπειρίαν· ὁ δὲ περὶ τὴν Μαντίνειαν τὴν μὲν ἔμφασιν ἔχει ποικίλην καὶ στρατηγικήν, ἔστι δʼ ἀνυπόστατος5 καὶ τελέως ἀδιανόητος τῷ συγγραφεῖ. τοῦτο δʼ ἔσται δῆλον, ἐάν τις τοὺς τόπους ὑποθέμενος ἀληθινῶς ἐπιμετρῇ τὰς κινήσεις τὰς ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ δηλουμένας.
Now the battle at Leuctra, having been simple and having taken place in only one part of the force, does not make the historian’s inexperience too obvious; but that around Mantinea, while having a complex and strategic appearance, is untenable and completely incomprehensible to the writer. And this will be clear, if someone, assuming the topography truly, measures the movements described by him.
τὸ δʼ αὐτὸ συμβαίνει καὶ Θεοπόμπῳ καὶ μάλιστα Τιμαίῳ, περὶ οὗ νῦν ὁ λόγος·
The same thing happens also to Theopompus and especially to Timaeus, who is the subject of our present discourse.
οὗ μὲν γὰρ ἂν ὑπὲρ τῶν τοιούτων κεφαλαιώδη ποιήσωνται τὴν ὑπόθεσιν, διαλανθάνουσιν,6 οὗ δʼ ἂν βουληθῶσι διαθέσθαι καὶ συνυποδεῖξαί τι τῶν κατὰ μέρος, τοιοῦτοι φαίνονται καὶ πάντως οἷος Ἔφορος. —
For where they make their treatment of such matters summary, they escape notice, but where they wish to set forth and demonstrate any of the details, they appear to be in every way such as Ephorus is.
- 12.25f.1ἐπὶ ποσὸν ὑπόνοιαν ἐσχηκέναι
The adverbial phrase ἐπὶ ποσὸν (to a certain extent) modifies the perfect infinitive ὑπόνοιαν ἐσχηκέναι (to have possessed a notion/understanding). It indicates that Ephorus was not completely ignorant of naval warfare, but possessed some conceptual grasp of it.
- 12.25f.2θαυμάζειν ... εἰκὸς
An impersonal construction with the adjective εἰκός (it is natural/fitting), governing the infinitives θαυμάζειν and ἀπενέγκασθαι. The implied subject of these infinitives is a general observer or reader (τις).
- 12.25f.3ἐπιστήσας
An aorist active participle used intransitively (or with τὸν νοῦν "one's mind/attention" understood), meaning "having directed (one's attention)." It modifies the main subjunctive verb θεωρῇ within the conditional clause.
- 12.25f.3ἀόρατος τῶν τοιούτων ὤν
The adjective ἀόρατος, which usually has a passive sense ("invisible"), is here used in an active sense ("not seeing, blind"), governing the objective genitive τῶν τοιούτων ("blind to such matters").
- 12.25f.4ἀνυπόστατος
With reference to the historical and geographical descriptions, this adjective means "untenable" or "unsustainable." It indicates that Ephorus's account is impossible to reconcile with actual tactical reality.
- 12.25f.7διαλανθάνουσιν
The third-person plural of διαλανθάνω (to escape notice). Here it means that as long as the historians write in general terms, their tactical ignorance "escapes notice" and remains undetected by the readers.