Oh my poor bleeding eyes !! Over 5,000 words of argumentative posts from Agesilaos, much of which is misleading, repetitive, and wrong. I could refute it sentence by sentence but that would be a dreary process, produce yet longer wordier posts, and be of little interest to the general reader, nor can I be bothered....... I shall confine myself to answering only the worst of it.
Agesilaos wrote:
“Err..rr..r, I don’t think being a member of RAT was on the charge sheet; “
You made a misleading remark by stating that we were both members of RAT. I had not been since 2010, and you were an active member only very briefly back then, and made only a few posts on this single subject – but it does demonstrate that you can be quite careless with facts at times.
“Robin Lane Fox; from a man dismissing Borza, Cole and Errington! Pleeeeez!!!”
You often accuse me of ‘dismissing’ this or that person, and I repeatedly have to correct you and point out that I ‘dismiss’ no-one, though I may disagree with a given specific assertion from time to time. If you actually read what I posted, I did not dismiss Borza, Cole and Errington and agreed that the tale of the assassins dressing up as women etc probably is fiction, but also that Herodotus was probably correct in saying the Persian envoys were murdered.
On the contrary, it is you who express disdain in dismissing the views of Lane-Fox. Whilst there is much to disagree with in some of his views, one should not blanket denigrate him completely.
“That a man who has changed his mind should have inconsistent views is axiomatic and hardly surprising (more dictionary work necessary I fear), of course your diametrically opposed views are consistent, just as when you continually say that ‘we do not know’ and proceed to say how things were it is part of divine revelation to you alone.LOL”
Once again, you resort to “flaming” and personal insults – which is one of the reasons I have been slow to answer this lengthy discourse. Such behaviour can only be deplored – it is not conducive to reasoned debate, as I have repeatedly pointed out.
With almost all aspects of ancient history, we do not know matters for certain, and must rely on balance of probability – which IS axiomatic, and therefore unnecessary to say every time. LOL!
To acknowledge that we do not ‘know’ something, expressly or impliedly, and then go on to suggest a hypothesis, hopefully taking into account probability is something we all do, including you. A case of the kettle calling the pot black ?
Agesilaos wrote:
“Smear? The readers may decide for themselves. I realise you actually do not get that simply writing ‘no, everything you have written is simply wrong,’ is a long winded way of saying it is BS, but it is , more polite, perhaps, but qualitively the same.”
No it isn’t the same at all, nor do I say that you are always wrong – you will find I frequently agree with you. But your level of military general knowledge, and ancient military matters in particular, is not good, particularly technical matters, though of course you have undoubted expertise in other areas of ancient history. The fact that you can’t carry on a debate politely without resorting to profanities is a poor reflection on you, and I am sure unappreciated by the readership. I have asked you before to desist from such “flaming” and bad language, to no avail it seems.
“But onto the meat;
Does ‘dekad’ mean ‘file of ten’ in a military context, or can it also mean a generic ‘file’?
Let us analyse your analysis;
Xenophon wrote:
I had for many years been most suspicious that ‘dekad’ always meant a file of ten, despite its literary meaning, because we simply don’t hear of files of ten in the context of hoplites ( save once at Xen.[ VI.5.19], rather suspiciously, and this may be because of terrain constraints, or be one of the common numerical errors, or an emendation in the distant past. Indeed it is so unusual that some emend the figure to eight).
“Aside from confusing ‘literal’ with ‘literary’, VI 5 xix is ‘nine or ten’ and refers to a re-deployment on a plain; thus neither suspicious nor constrained by terrain, and if some amend to eight (on what grounds??) why not emend Xenophon’s four to eight? Or any other number…oops, two numbers here viz “
No, I meant ‘literary’ not ‘literal’. I was referring to its meaning within the context of the military literature, which is NOT a literal ‘ten’. I accept that Xenophon VI.5.19’s “nine or ten” may well be “the exception that proves/tests the rule”. It is the ONLY occasion when this sort of depth is referred to in all the literary references to depth of hoplite files, and is a unique situation. Even then Xenophon does not call this a ‘dekad’, but specifies depth by referring to the number, for use of the generic term ‘dekad/file’ would not tell readers the actual depth!
Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
After non-context filtering out, we are left with few examples ‘in context’. The matter is further complicated because the latin ‘decury’, which IS a file of ten is translated into Greek by Roman writers as ‘dekad’.[correction: ‘dekania’]
“Maybe some references to the things being filtered out or, indeed, in would help; things are not complicated by the Romans translating ‘decuria’ into Greek as ‘dekados’ , it demonstrates just what it means, ‘a group of ten’, no implication of files or whatever, just a group. Shock, horror the Greeks had a word for a group of ten, but how can YOU be sure that that is what Homer means? You have failed to supply the reference; to an ancient source rather than a modern post: does he name ten men? If not why should this dekad not be sixteen, twelve, six or any other number that might suit the argument of the moment? Or is there a stirring of common-sense that admits that dekados must have originally meant exactly what it says, ‘a group of ten’?”
You yourself refer to the Homeric reference when you posted the LSJ definition of ‘dekas’.[ see below] It is Iliad II.2.126: “
...Think that the Achaeans and Trojans have sworn to a solemn covenant, and that they have each been numbered- the Trojans by the roll of their householders, and we by ‘dekads’[companies [groups/squads] of ten]; think further that each of our companies desired to have a Trojan householder to pour out their wine; we are so greatly more in number that full many a company/group/squad would have to go without its cup-bearer.”
Agamemnon is saying that the Achaeans outnumber the Trojans by more than a factor of ten.
And of course ‘dekad’ must have originally referred to a company /squad of ten since dekas = ten. Homer pre-dates hoplites, so I’d agree that the Homeric ‘dekad’ does not refer to a ‘file’ at all, but by Xenophon’s time it certainly did. Non-context filtering out means all those myriad references to ‘ten’, the many words prefixed by ‘deka’etc, since the context we are discussing is hoplite files.
My apologies for a slight typo( see correction above). I was actually referring to ‘dekania’, which is latin ‘decuria’ translated/transliterated into Greek. It only occurs twice in all our sources, both times in the manuals [Arrian tactica VI.1 and Ascepiodotus 2] which is one of the many indicators that all three manuals are based on a common source.
Agesilaos wrote
Xenophon wrote:
“Our next sources are Herodotus and Thucydides, neither of whom use the word in its technical military context, though Thucydides gives us useful information about hoplite, particularly Spartan, organisation. At this time, citizens were liable for service for 40 years, 21-60 inclusive, and were called up by age classes to give any required size of force. At Plataea for example, 5,000 out of a potential 8,000 Spartans were present or 25 age classes i.e. “those up to 25 years from manhood.” A Spartan ‘enomotia’/sworn band/platoon contained 40 men in 4 files of ten, arranged in age classes. The eldest almost never took the field ( only once, after Leuktra, as far as we know ), thus a nominal file of ten [dekad] usually fielded 6-8 men in practice, most commonly 8.( "those 35 years from manhood") Thus ‘dekad’/file and ‘dekadarch’/file leader probably came to have a generic meaning of just “file” as well. Other states/poleis organisations, such as Athens, were similar.”
“Yet, Herodotos VII 8.i
καὶ χιλιάρχας τε καὶ μυριάρχας ἀποδέξαντες, ἑκατοντάρχας δὲ καὶ δεκάρχας οἱ μυριάρχαι.
and appointed captains of thousands and ten thousands; the captains of ten thousands appointed the captains of hundreds and of tens.
Clearly a military context and dekarchs commanding ten men. “
Either you didn’t read this passage properly, or you are being deliberately misleading,. The context we are talking about ( see previously) is that of hoplite files. This passage [VII.81.1] is a reference to Persian organisation, which was on a decimal basis, which is not disputed, and NOT Hoplite files. Herodotus does not use the term at all of Greek hoplite files, only ‘barbarians’.Evidently you are clutching at straws, being unable to find a single example of a hoplite file being referred to as a ‘dekas’/literal:ten ( as opposed to the generic ‘dekad’/file)
In addition, many other words in Greek were prefixed by ‘deka’ indicating ten, but over time evolved their meaning into something else e.g. dekazn, which came to mean to bribe or corrupt, or dekathlogos meaning a tithe collector ( tithes traditionally, but not necessarily, were a tenth part), or dekapalai meaning a very long time ago, or dekadromoi meaning adults ( originally derived from those who had taken part in ten contests).'Dekad' evolved similarly.
Moreover there are differences between similar words:
‘Deka-arch’ literally means ‘ten-leader’ and thus Herodotus’ usage ‘dekarch’ is perfectly correct for Achaemenid Persian use in Xerxes army. Xenophon uses the word ‘dekad-arch’ which literally means ‘dekad-leader’ which is subtly different, because Xenophon’s use of the word ‘dekad’ means generically just ‘company/group/squad’ – as in this LSJ entry for ‘dekas/dekad’, which you yourself referred to, apparently without noticing the reference to a general/generic company/group/squad.
LSJ :
A. Company of ten, Il.2.126 , Hdt.3.25 ? of Ships, A. Pers. 340 , etc : generally, Company, (my emphasis)
The only word Xenophon uses for ‘file leader’ is ‘dekadarch’ – there is no ‘stichodarch’ for instance, and so this must be a generic term, for whilst hoplite files called up by age groups could theoretically number ten, in practise the most common depth/number of a file we hear of is 8, sometimes 12, and by Macedonian times 16 – with rare exceptions – and all appear to be led by ‘dekadarchs’, whether infantry or cavalry files.
Later still, other variations in Roman times would include ‘dekandros’ = latin Decemvir, ‘dekania’ (twice in the manuals, see above) =latin decury, ‘dekadarchis’ = latin Decurion ( as used by Arrian ‘Contra Alanos’ and Josephus ‘Bello Judaica’), or dekatarchos = latin Decurion of the fleet That is why earlier I cautioned that later translation of latin terms into approximate Greek equivalents only obscured earlier Greek usage.
I’m not going to comment on Agesilaos’ largely incorrect presumptions about the Spartan army – readers are referred to Lazenby’s “Spartan Army” and Anderson’s “Military theory and practise in the age of Xenophon” as the best and second best modern sources and discussion.
However the following I will comment on, demonstrating as it does Agesilaos’ flawed assertions.
Agesilaos wrote:
“The 8,000 figure for the total Spartan population come from Herodotos VII 234 i-ii
This, then, is how the Greeks fought at Thermopylae. Xerxes then sent for Demaratus and questioned him, saying first, “Demaratus you are a good man. I hold that proven by the plain truth, for things have turned out no differently than you foretold. Now, tell me this: how many Lacedaemonians are left, and how many of them are warriors like these? or is it so with them all?”
[2] “My king,” said Demaratus, “the number of the Lacedaemonians is great, and so too the number of their cities. But what you would like to know, I will tell you: there is in Lacedaemon a city called Sparta, a city of about eight thousand men, all of them equal to those who have fought here; the rest of the Lacedaemonians are not equal to these, yet they are valiant men.”
So it comes from a fictionalised speech, and is based on Herodotos’ own estimate, it would be unlikely that his Spartan informants would have census figures to hand. Nor does a 2/3 turnout for the climactic battle for the Freedom of Hellas ring true, Leuktra elicited a larger levy and that was meant to be a simple squashing of Thebes.”
The assertions here are all flawed attempts to rationalise away what Herodotus tells us. ALL speeches in our sources are ‘fictionalised’ rather than verbatim, and the product of the author. If we dismiss the figure 8,000 on that ground, then we dismiss everything in such speeches and are left with what ? Not much !
Secondly, you don’t need a detailed census to know the approximate army strength – everyone in Sparta would know this, including Herodotus' informants !
Thirdly, ‘census’ figures in the form of a ‘katalogos’ were to hand in every Greek city anyway, an essential tool when deciding on call-up figures and who was due to serve.
Finally, Herodotus numbers the Spartans at 5,000 at Plataea, and Xenophon states 4 Morai present at Leuktra which is best interpreted ( see e.g. Lazenby ch 9 pp.151- 162) as 4,480 hoplites plus the Hippeis of 300 – a similar number as at Plataea. Because of the perceived constant threat from the Helots, a large proportion of the Spartan army ( roughly 3,000 or 3/8ths, mainly oldsters and youngsters ) always remained in the Peloponnese whether the foe was Persia, Athens or Thebes.
Not only does Agesilaos resort to personal attacks, but he is guilty of rationalisation too – starting from a desired conclusion, then selectively ‘reverse engineering’ arguments to support that pre-determined belief, such as his ‘explaining away’ information in Herodotus on spurious grounds.
Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
“It is in Xenophon that we first find detailed technical descriptions, and where we meet ‘dekad’ and dekadarch’ for the first time. In the Cyropaedia there are four occasions that Xenophon describes ’dekads’ [2.1.26 where he lists the sub-divisions of a company down to ‘half-files’/pempadas; 2.2.30 where a ‘dekad/file/squad’ is referred to; 4.4.5 where Cyrus sends out 'dekadas/files/squads’ and ‘half-files/squads/pempadas’ at night; and finally 8.1.14 where 'dekadarchoi’/squad leaders/file leaders look after their squads.] ‘Dekadarchoi/file leaders/squad leaders’ are referred to at [2.1.22-30; 2.3.21; 4.2.27 and 8.1.14].
“If one ignores Herodotos; and if one ignores those pesky dodekadarchoi , whose intrusion, prove that a Greek could not assign the command of twelve men to a dekadarch. “
More flawed reasoning ! Herodotus’ use of ‘dekarch’/ten-leader to describe a file leader in Xerxes Persian army has nothing to do with Greek files, and therefore when discussing hoplite files he is irrelevant.( He doesn’t use the term ‘dekad’/file at all). The most significant point about this is that it is evident Agesilaos cannot find an instance of ‘dekas’ being used to describe a Greek file, as I have said ( the closest being the reference to a depth of nine or ten shields in Xenophon, which ironically is NOT called a ‘dekad’!).
Nor does Xenophon’s single use of ‘dodekadarchoi’ and ‘hexadarchoi’ “prove” Agesilaos’ assertion, for in fact Xenophon refers to the fictional Cyrus’ files as ‘dekads’ most of the time [see paragraph quoted just above] – a generic term for “file”, as per the LSJ definition [see above], and when he wants to emphasise the specific file depth, uses a term he has invented ( since it occurs only in this work), ‘dodekad’/file of twelve. This at least has the merit of being consistent whereas Agesilaos postulated that Xenophon refers to “specific file of ten” and “specific file of twelve” mistakenly when referring to the fictional Cyrus’ files. I prefer to believe Xenophon knew what he was talking about, and used ‘dekad’ generically, and ‘dodekad’ when he wanted to give the specific number – precisely because ‘dekad’ was a general term for file.
Agesilaos wrote:
“Xenophon wrote:
In the “Cavalry Commander” Xenophon refers both to ‘stichos/file’[III.9] and ‘dekada/files’[V.7], apparently interchangeably. The words are clearly synonyms to describe the same files.
Interestingly, ‘file leader’ is only ever ‘dekadarchos’,( and half-file leader ‘pempadarch’[IV.9]) - there is no other word, hence they must be generic to all files. ‘Stichos’ is also referred to in the Constitution of the Lacedaemonians[X1.5-8] ( and incidently twice in Aeneas Tacticus [31 and 40])
.
“‘Stichos’ is a generic ‘file’ and, confusingly, a ‘row’; 3 ix is the only time Xenophon uses it, and presumably because he is speaking of a situation where he does know how strong the file will be, thereafter he uses dekados as he is speaking of the ideal; they are not interchangeable,...”
This is just not so. The files referred to at Xen Cavalry Commander III.9 as ‘stichos’ are exactly the same files referred to at V.7 as ‘dekadas’ – the terms are indeed interchangeable and synonymous. Moreover the file-leader is
only ever a ‘dekadarch’/ dekad-leader, and the half-file leader a ‘pempadarch’, so these are the generic terms. [no 'stichodarch' for example]
“... after the pempadarchoi have extended the front the ‘stichos’ would be a pempados rather than a dekados; we have a general term and specific terms. ‘Dekadarchos and pempadarchos are number specific and so it is no wonder that these are the only words used, neither means file-leader or half-file leader they simply refer to the number in the command, either could be the file-leader depending upon the deployment.”
The whole point is that ‘dekadarch’ and ‘pempadarch’ are
not always number specific, but can also be generic. [see the LSJ quoted above with reference to ‘dekad’ being a general term for company/squad/file]. Moreover, the Loeb translator, and every other translator I have come across translate ‘dekad’ as generic file, ‘dekadarch’ as generic file-leader and ‘pempadadarch’ as generic half-file leader. You are the only one I know of who perversely insists that these terms can only be number specific.
“Yes the generic word ‘stichos’ is used a lot.”
Indeed , ‘stichos’ appears in the manuals as well[ Arrian 6; Asclepiodotus II.2; Aelian V.2 ] as one of the ‘old’ [ pre- Macedonian] terms for file:
“
The whole file is called a ‘stichos’, and is also termed a ‘dekania’, and by some an enomotia....”[Aelian V.2] and “
Now the file was formerly called a ‘stichos’, a ‘synomoty’ and a ‘dekania’........”[Ascelepiodotus II.2] again indicating, as in Xenophon, that the terms are synonymous generic ones – “the file” with no particular number given..
Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
Similarly, Agesilaos argues that since a real Persian file nominally had 10 men, this must be what Xenophon means by ‘dekad' in the Cyropaedia. There are two strong objections to this. Firstly, the organisation Xenophon describes is purely Greek (consisting of taxeis/companies; lochoi/platoons; dekads/files and pempadas/half-files completely unlike any real Persian organisation ) and secondly Xenophon specifically tells us these files form 12 deep [“eis dodeka” XC 2.4.4 c.f. 3.3.11 where we hear of ‘dodekadarchia/leader of twelve and ‘hexadarchia/leader of six’ ] These latter terms occur only in Xenophon and only once, so he has clearly invented the words to make his point about specific file depth ( of twelve), and thereafter reverts to generic ‘dekadesn’ and ‘pempadas’. ( Files of 12 were contemporary Spartan practice, according to XH 6.4.12 and XCoL II.4)
“This is not what I argue at all, but nice try; ‘dekados’ means a ‘group of ten’, until its retention in the Macedonian as remnant.”
This is simply untrue.You concede that by Macedonian times, if not before, ‘dekad’ was a generic term for file ?! There is no getting around the fact that a Macedonian ‘dekad’ numbered 16, not 10 !! Nor is there ANY evidence that a Macedonian ‘dekad’
ever numbered ten, or that it was a ‘remnant term’. Note also that you yourself posted the LSJ definition which includes “
generally, Company”[squad, group or file]. It seems you are in a minority of one in arguing that ‘dekad’ can only mean a group of ten.
Agesilaos wrote:
“Xenophon does not actually describe one organisation at all he is inconsistent from chapter to chapter. No Greek army was organised in files of ten, or groups of five.... The organisation is unlike any reality and Xenophon does not care but makes it decimal save for two instances one where they form twelve deep and he has dodekadarchoi, since it would be a nonsense otherwise and later at VII 4 30, where hexadarchoi are described as the lowest level officers distributing the spoils of Sardis. Here we have another instance of Xenophon’s lackadaisical interest in the detail – if the dodekadarchs had distributed the spoil already then the hexadarchs have no job to do, if not then those men under the dekadarch rather than a hexadarch get no share, or maybe he is making the dodekadarchoi and hexadarchoi of equal status. This is not a Taktike.”
Why do you presume that Xenophon is “inconsistent” ( or mistaken)? He was a famous Hoplite commander, writing in his native tongue and contemporaneously, whilst you peer through a glass darkly, knowing little about hoplites, from 2000 plus years later, and are not a native speaker! There is no need to presume inconsistency, or that “he does not care”, if one simply accepts that ‘dekad’ could have a generic meaning – like so many other Greek words with similar origins[ see examples above]. All then makes perfect sense. Xenophon uses ‘dekad’ as a file in its general sense ( as all translators agree) and uses ‘eis dodeka’ and ‘dodekad’/file of twelve when he wants to specify the exact number in the file. No "inconsistency", no "lackadaisical interest in the detail". As if someone writing about his own area of expertise would be so careless as to risk ruining his own reputation by so doing ! A highly unlikely proposition!
BTW, I don’t understand your confusion over the division of spoil – it is perfectly straightforward. Each rank extracts his share, then hands the balance to his subordinate for further distribution down the chain.
“Next he divided also among his own soldiers the spoil that he had obtained at Sardis. To the generals and to his own aides-de-camp he gave the choicest portions—to each, according to his merit—and then distributed the rest; and in assigning to the generals their proper portions he left it to their discretion to distribute it as he had distributed to them. And they apportioned all the rest, each officer examining into the merits of his subordinate officers; and what was left to the last, the corporals[hexadarchoi/ half-file leader of six], inquiring into the merits of the private soldiers under their command, gave to each according to his deserts. And so all were in receipt of their fair share.” [VIII.4.29.-30 ] not [VII.4.30] typo
Not a ‘Taktike’ ? The definition of ‘Taktike techne’ is “the art of arrangement” i.e. formations and drill and no better example can be found than Xenophon in his ‘Cyropaedia’, specifically II.3.21. Xenophon’s work addresses a number of subjects, and ‘taktike’ is certainly one of them, so it certainly IS a ‘taktike’, in part at least.
Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
“If Xenophon meant the literal ‘file of ten’, Agesilaos must argue that he can’t count, made a mistake, or was senile or suffering from Alzheimers – none of which are likely, not least because other sources such as the manuals do not comment on it, or allege any "mistake". Far more probable is that Xenophon is correct in his usage, that it is generic ‘file’ that Xenophon means, which other ancient sources recognised, and that Agesilaos’ forced translation is simply wrong.”
“You really are in no position to tell me what I ‘must argue’; strawman alert as usual.”
No strawman at all – you argue that Xenophon is ‘inconsistent’, ‘lackadaisical about detail’ etc – in other words mistaken, just as I anticipated you would try and argue.
“ Try and absorb what I have been saying all along, Xenophon’s interest is in the things that make his Kyros the ideal Prince, he is unconcerned about details of organisation or drill, which is apparent from the various organisations for lochoi and the 12/10 mix.”
Not at all, all this comes from a mulish insistence that ‘dekad’ can only mean ‘file of ten’.Once again starting with an incorrect presumption as a foundation, which leads to increasingly unlikely assertions about Xenophon’s competence! To assert that he is "unconcerned" about ‘taktike’ is so wrong as to be an absurdity, since Xenophon goes to considerable lengths to give descriptions of organisation and drill- indeed he is our only source for the mechanics of hoplite formations and drill.
“ When he comes to the battles he has nothing much to say tactically, unless you think, as some do, that his solution to the Theban embolon was scythed chariots and eight archers on a tower. Since ‘dekados’ is emphatically NOT a ‘generic’ file, but excepting the later Macedonian usage a file of ten your oft repeated but still false point fails.”
Nothing much to say tactically ? Surely you cannot be serious!
You evidently did not read the work properly ! There is much more to the tactical theories expounded under cover of Xenophon’s fictional battle of “Thymbrara” than scythed chariots and wheeled towers. Xenophon sets out what to do when outflanked, when outnumbered, and by greater depth, the disadvantages of too great a depth, the importance of reconnaissance, of proper preparations – such as feeding the men before battle, the importance of front and rear ranks, the use of tactical surprise/ambush, the importance of planning, religious duties, encouraging morale and a myriad of other aspects of ‘tactics’ in battle. Indeed, much of what Xenophon says about 'taktike' is repeated in the later Hellenistic ‘technical manual’, and Xenophon was used directly as a source by Arrian in his version.
Apply Xenophon’s tactical lessons and you will discover the best means of defeating a Theban ‘embolon’ !! The tactical lessons to be learned from the Cyropaedia, and their reproduction in the Hellenistic manuals could take up an entire thread, and we need not take up the oriental embellishments of scythed chariots and wheeled towers as at all serious, and neither would his readers! ( including the Hellenistic tacticians).
As to false points failing, it is your irrational insistence that ‘dekad’ can only mean group of ten that fails – only you make such a claim, and it is so obviously wrong, for on that false assumption as foundation, you then have to go on and insist Xenophon is wrong !! A rather illogical and irrational viewpoint,to say the least.
LSJ
δεκα?́δαρχ-ος , ὁ,
A. [select] = δεκάρχης, commander of ten men, X.Cyr.8.1.14, Plb.6.25.2, Arr.Tact. 42.1, LXXEx.18.21,25, De.1.15, 1 Ma.3.55.
II. [select] = Lat. decemvir, D.H.10.60.
III. [select] = τελώνης, Hsch. (Cf. δεκατ-.）
δεκάς , άδος, ἡ,
A. [select] company of ten, Il.2.126, Hdt.3.25; of ships, A. Pers.340, etc.: generally, company, “ἧς καὶ σὺ φαίνει δεκάδος” E.Supp. 219; number, tale, “τῶν ἐτέων ἡ δ. οὐκ ὀλίγη” Call.Fr.489; ἡ Ἀττικὴ δ., the ten Attic Orators, Luc.Scyth.10.
2. [select] Αύκου δ. the company of Lycus, a name given to bribed dicasts at Athens, because the bribers were to be found near the statue of Lycus in the law-courts, Eratosth. ap. Harp.s.v.
II. [select] the number ten, περὶ τῆς δ., title of work by Archytas, cf. Philol.11, Arist.Metaph.1084a12; τέλειον ἡ δ., Pythag., ib.986a8, cf. Fr.203.
III. [select] = δεκάτη 1, Hsch. s.v. δεκατευταί.
I leave it to the forum to decide just who is ‘forcing’ the translation”.
Indeed !! Forgive my emphasis of the ‘general/generic’ meaning above, which you have clearly overlooked. Then of course there is the fact that the Loeb translators ( Walter Miller, Carleton Brownson, E.C. Marchant ) ALL universally translate ‘dekad’ as generic ‘file’. The poor methodology of starting with an incorrect assumption/conviction, which then leads you further and further into more unlikely assumptions is blindingly obvious ( Xenophon is ‘inconsistent’ (!!),’lackadaisical’ about military detail etc in a work clearly intended in part at least as a ‘taktike’ etc) – a flashing red light which should have told you that you were absolutely wrong.
!!!