1. XENOPHON ON TRIAL

Near Cotyora the Ten Thousand held a series of trials aimed at settling outstanding matters that had occurred since Cyrus’ death. Among these, Xenophon's case seems especially serious:Footnote ¹¹ he was charged with committing hybris by some men who declared that they had been beaten by him (An. 5.8.1 κατηγόρησάν τινες φάσκοντες παίεσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὡς ὑβρίζοντος τὴν κατηγορίαν ἐποιοῦντο). The terminology and the accusation reflect what we know of the Athenian graphê hybreôs, and although we cannot assume that the army employed the same procedure we can certainly conclude that Xenophon was formally charged: in other words, even in the context of a mercenary camp, litigation was conducted according to the institutionalized procedures of a polis proper.Footnote ¹²

Xenophon's defence is made in a series of pressing questions and counterstatements refuting the charges brought by the first man who spoke against him (An. 5.8.2 τὸν πρῶτον λέξαντα). This man appears to be the leader, or at least the most prominent, of the accusers: that Xenophon never names him—although it later becomes clear that he has recognized him: §2—may be a way to downplay the importance and the dignity of an opponent by simply denying his first name, a strategy consistently employed elsewhere in the Anabasis.Footnote ¹³ Xenophon leads the prosecutor to clarify the circumstances until it becomes clear that his charge is unsubstantiated and that the accuser himself is responsible for shameful acts (2–12). Xenophon proves that the beating was legitimate and emerges as a good leader, offering more general remarks on duty and solidarity (13–20). Finally, he proceeds to shame the audience for allowing unrestricted, abusive behaviour by some soldiers (21–6). The episode, which ends with Xenophon's triumph and a general reconciliation within the army, is not without irony, and one might suspect that a rather inexperienced accuser was easily defeated (if not outright bullied) by Xenophon's superior rhetorical skills. Regardless, as we shall see, it is the values underpinning the speech which make it an important display of wide-ranging social norms.

First, Xenophon asks the accuser to state the circumstances of the beating (An. 5.8.2–3): the reference to deep cold and heavy snowfall points to the crossing of Armenia in Book 4, chaps. 4–5, when Xenophon led by example from the very first stages (4.12; below, §3). Chased by Tiribazus’ army, the Greeks lost men and animals (5.4, 5.11–15) and the extreme conditions (4.8–11, 5.1–4) fostered individualistic attitudes in many of the soldiers (5.5–6). Xenophon took the initiative by distributing food from the baggage train (5.8–9) and resorted to any means and device (5.16 πάσῃ τέχνῃ καὶ μηχανῇ) to spur the men in the rear. In these passages Xenophon never mentions physical violence openly, but we learn that he got angry (5.16 τελευτῶν ἐχαλέπαινεν) and ordered the younger soldiers to force the sick to proceed (5.21).Footnote ¹⁴ In any case, it is clear from his account that the army was facing a critical situation and that his efforts to help had been unceasing.

After alluding to the context of the incident, Xenophon presses his accuser to state why he had been beaten. Xenophon sarcastically comments that if the alleged accusation were true he would truly have committed hybris—indeed, he would be even more hybristic than a donkey (An. 5.8.3 εἰ ἐν τοιούτῳ καιρῷ ὕβριζον, ὁμολογῶ καὶ τῶν ὄνων ὑβριστότερος εἶναι), a comparison which alludes to a mixture of violent overexcitement, physical and verbal aggressiveness (cf. Hdt. 4.129.1), general self-indulgence (Pl. Phd. 81e) and proverbial stubbornness attributed to donkeys.Footnote ¹⁵ The choice of the donkey metaphor may well be a pun on the accuser's role of mule-driver (below, §2): although clearly distinct in the sources, donkeys and mules shared a number of typical traits in addition to the role of pack animals.Footnote ¹⁶ Here Xenophon is ridiculing the charges brought against him, a strategy which he employs also in other episodes (for example An. 5.7.6–10). Through the following series of questions, Xenophon brings his accuser to confirm that the beating was not motivated by a dispute over something, a love-affair, or drunkenness (8.4)—according to Athenian law, but probably also to general understanding, at least the last two were no legal excuse for hybris.Footnote ¹⁷

2. SHAMING THE ACCUSER

Next, Xenophon asks the accuser to declare his role in the army: the man was serving neither as a hoplite nor as a peltast but as a mule-driver, assigned to this task by his tent mates (An. 5.8.5 ἡμίονον ἐλαύνειν ταχθεὶς ὑπὸ τῶν συσκήνων). That the man immediately specifies his free status (ἐλεύθερος ὤν) suggests that (also) slaves were assigned to this task in the army (cf. driving a mule cart as a slave job in Pl. Lysis 208b). The man might have been a soldier temporarily assigned to the mules,Footnote ¹⁸ but the detail is of little use: Xenophon is here focussing on the man's role at the time of the incident. Handling the pack animals was essential for the survival of the army, and in Armenia Xenophon himself had distributed supplies from the baggage train to help the soldiers (An. 4.5.8–9; §1 above). However, through his question Xenophon now suggests the humble status of the mule-driver within a descending hierarchy of roles,Footnote ¹⁹ with the clear aim of discrediting his opponent. A close parallel is provided by Xenophon's dismissal of Apollonides, the only lochagos who had spoken against him in the choice of the new commanders (3.1.26): after demonstrating his incompetence, Xenophon had proposed that the army should cast him out, demote him and assign him to carry the baggage (3.1.30 σκεύη ἀναθέντας ὡς τοιούτῳ χρῆσθαι).Footnote ²⁰

Once the accuser identifies himself as a mule-driver, Xenophon seems to recognize him as one who, at the time of the incident, was carrying a sick man (An. 5.8.6): the opponent confirms this and seeks sympathy from the audience, claiming that Xenophon had compelled him to the task after scattering the baggage of his tent mates (σὺ γὰρ ἠνάγκαζες. τὰ δὲ τῶν ἐμῶν συσκήνων σκεύη διέρριψας), that is, harming and insulting not just him but the whole unit. For a soldier, appealing to his unit to ground claims appears to have been common practice: the plaintiff of Demosthenes’ Against Conon underlined that he had reported unruly comrades to the stratêgos not by himself but together with all his mess-mates (54.4 κοινῇ πάντες οἱ σύσσιτοι προσελθόντες, οὐκ ἐγὼ τῶν ἄλλων ἔξω). Consider also Xenophon's comments on Cyrus the Great's arrangement of his soldiers by tents, as a way of fostering their mutual consideration (Cyr. 2.1.25 τὸ αἰσχύνεσθαι). Xenophon quickly dismisses his opponent's insinuation (An. 5.8.7) and proceeds to use the new information to his own advantage. As the sick man was unable to walk (cf. 4.5.3–5, §1 above), he had been entrusted to the mule-driver who, shortly after, attempted to bury his passenger alive (5.8.8–11). It was at this point that Xenophon hit the mule-driver, whose actions now emerge as cruel and detrimental for the whole army: realizing that the beating was anything but gratuitous, the enraged soldiers in the audience cry out that Xenophon had just not beaten him enough (5.8.12 τοῦτον μὲν ἀνέκραγον ὡς ὀλίγας παίσειεν).

A few comparisons will best illustrate the main points of this scene in Xenophon's defence, here turning into a counterattack as he switches roles and becomes the accuser. On a general level, the mule-driver's attempt to abandon the sick man can be compared to Aristotle's example of shameful conduct (aischynê) as profiting from the weak (Rh. 1383b22–4; see also 1385b24–32 on hybris and pity); to Lycurgus’ accusation of Leocrates, a traitor and a coward who sought safety for himself alone rather than for the whole community (Leoc. 43, 67, 110, 131; cf. Lys. 31.7); and even to Darius’ cynical plan to abandon to the Scythians his mules along with the men unable to fight (Hdt. 4.134.3–136). Xenophon's success in arousing the soldiers’ indignation mirrors the accuser's practice of stirring the judges’ hostility against a defendant, a familiar technique in forensic oratory.Footnote ²¹ Finally, the scene of the audience applauding the sensible leader who beats the wretched subordinate recalls Odysseus’ maltreatment of Thersites in the Iliad (2.270–7).Footnote ²² Other scholars have found different parallels for Thersites in the Anabasis,Footnote ²³ and R.F. Buxton sees a ‘striking contrast’ between Xenophon's leadership and the divide between leaders and soldiers in the Iliad,Footnote ²⁴ whereas I would rather focus on the similarities: Xenophon's methodical humiliation of his opponent, first by pointing out his humble role, then by exposing his shameful act, aims at harming his reputation to the point that his accusation carries no weight, just as Thersites’ words are worthless, regardless of their contents, owing to his poor fame and lineage.Footnote ²⁵ Another, partially similar episode from the Anabasis perhaps best illustrates Xenophon's strategy: at the end of Book 6, Dexippus points to Xenophon as the person responsible for a serious incident involving the army and the Spartan authorities.Footnote ²⁶ Just as with the mule-driver, Xenophon focusses on ruining his opponent's reputation while magnifying his own virtues, portraying Dexippus as a liar (6.6.5–11), traitor and coward (6.6.17 and 6.6.22–4; cf. 5.1.15). The Spartan harmost accepts Dexippus’ ill repute, but also states that, regardless of that, he ought not to have suffered bia instead of a regular trial (6.6.25). Eventually, the situation ends favourably for Xenophon (6.6.34) when, on his initiative, the soldiers beg the harmost to put both Dexippus and the rest of them to the test to see how they compare and to treat each one as he deserves (6.6.33 τὴν ἀξίαν ἑκάστοις νεῖμαι), implying that Dexippus’ claims would become even weaker once his wickedness is fully revealed—much as Thersites’ and the mule-driver's accusations were dropped once their baseness had been exposed.

At this point in his trial in Book 5 Xenophon has clearly won the confrontation, and the other men who had planned to bring a charge against him waive their chance (An. 5.8.12). Xenophon admits having beaten some others for their ataxia (5.8.13), meaning that these men were pursuing their own safety and interests at the expense of the whole army, with a selfishness similar to the mule-driver's. Just before his election to command, Xenophon had discussed the common safety provided by eutaxia vis-à-vis the disaster brought by ataxia (3.1.38).Footnote ²⁷ Xenophon declares that he had also struck and treated violently those who were about to give up the march (5.8.14 καὶ ἔπαισα καὶ ἐβιασάμην πορεύεσθαι; cf. 5.8.17 and §1 above on 4.5.21). From personal experience Xenophon had learned to resist the cold by keeping in motion and ‘behaving in a manly way’ (5.8.15 κινεῖσθαι καὶ ἀνδρίζεσθαι), a subtle appeal to the soldiers’ pride and courage as a source of motivation.Footnote ²⁸ Every act of violence he committed was for the good of the men (5.8.16–18); therefore, it was legitimate, as confirmed by his final, bold challenge: all those who were saved in Armenia are now able to indict Xenophon if they think that they have suffered anything unjust from him (5.8.17)—an implicit submission to the principle of accountability and to the rule of law.

3. CARING FOR THE COMRADES

Xenophon now compares his own role in the army (and the kind of dikê he should respond to) to that of three different figures: parents, teachers (An. 5.8.18 καὶ γονεῖς υἱοῖς καὶ διδάσκαλοι παισί) and physicians (ἰατροί). Xenophon does not establish a hierarchy among these models, contrary to a similar passage in the Apology (20): the topic of the authority of parents might have been tricky, as it had been notoriously involved in the charges against Socrates.Footnote ²⁹ Literary parallels for the good done by a physician through pain are abundant,Footnote ³⁰ and similarly the comparison of a leader to a father is rather common.Footnote ³¹ Fathers and teachers were prone to use violence to impart discipline (cf. Lac. 2.10, 6.1–2), to the point that both were stereotypically depicted as heavy-handed.Footnote ³² After a fourth comparison (An. 5.8.20: the officers of a ship caught in a storm), Xenophon underlines the legitimacy of his harsh manners: just as the paradigmatic figures he had mentioned are regarded as entitled to inflict pain when necessary, so—he claims—the audience now agrees that he acted justly (5.8.21 δικαίως).

Yet an apparently problematic parallel is found in the Anabasis itself in the figure of Clearchus, the violent Spartan commander and stern disciplinarian. In a clearly pejorative sense, Xenophon states that the men felt for Clearchus the same feelings that paides have for a didaskalos (2.6.12). On the one hand, like Xenophon, Clearchus used to beat the lazy and lead by first-person commitment even to humble tasks, causing aischynê in soldiers unable to match his efforts (3.11).Footnote ³³ On the other, there is one fundamental difference: unlike Xenophon's, Clearchus’ attitude was constantly harsh (6.12 ἀεὶ χαλεπὸς ἦν καὶ ὠμός) and, while it proved effective when facing threats, once danger was over the men would hardly tolerate it (6.11–12). Soldiers thus tended to defect and no one followed Clearchus out of friendship and goodwill (6.13 φιλίᾳ μὲν καὶ εὐνοίᾳ). Clearchus lacked the vision of great leaders: contrast Cyrus the Great's plan of earning the same eunoia and philia from his subjects (Cyr. 8.2.22).Footnote ³⁴ This view is not unique to Xenophon: compare, for example, Thucydides’ claim that mercenaries followed Demosthenes out of philia for him and eunoia for the Athenians (7.57.10).Footnote ³⁵

In fact, rather than considering these values and trying to adjust his leadership accordingly, Clearchus relied regularly on intimidation and used to say that soldiers ought to fear their commander more than the enemies (An. 2.6.10 δέοι τὸν στρατιώτην φοβεῖσθαι μᾶλλον τὸν ἄρχοντα ἢ τοὺς πολεμίους). Fear (or awe deriving from fear) for the officers is found as early as Homer (for example Il. 4.428–31 on the Achaeans δειδιότες σημάντορας), and notably in the sayings attributed to Chilon of Sparta, who subtly recommended inspiring aischynê rather than phobos (Demetr. Phal. fr. 114 W.² / 87 SOD, Chilon 12). Xenophon certainly draws on the Greek conceptualization of fear as a normative tool for the respect of law,Footnote ³⁶ but at the same time he problematizes the topic of ruling through fear: in the Cyropaedia, Cyrus the Great was able both to induce phobos of him and to inspire his subjects to earn his charis (1.1.5);Footnote ³⁷ in the Hiero, the tyrant aims to earn philia from his subjects rather than their fear (7.9 φιλοῦντές τε καὶ μὴ φοβούμενοι). Thus Xenophon's uncompromising Clearchus emerges as a despot: compare Agamemnon in Thucydides, leading οὐ χάριτι τὸ πλέον ἢ φόβῳ (1.9.3), or stereotyped Persian kings such as Xerxes in HerodotusFootnote ³⁸ (for example 7.103–4 on the subjects’ fear of the king vs the Spartans’ fear of the law) and Artaxerxes II in Xenophon (An. 3.1.18 aiming to spread πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις φόβον). Consistently, in Diodorus’ version Clearchus is more explicitly defined a tyrant.Footnote ³⁹

Xenophon's comparison of the soldiers’ feelings towards Clearchus with the feelings of paides for a didaskalos therefore points to fear and resentment of his harshness, characteristic of a man whom Plato might have regarded as prone to educate through degrading (Leg. 7, 793e ἀτίμως), enraging and hybristic punishment which ought to be avoided for free persons (τὸ μὴ μεθ᾽ ὕβρεως κολάζοντας ὀργὴν ἐμποιῆσαι).Footnote ⁴⁰ Fundamentally different from Clearchus, Xenophon had resorted to violence in an emergency (cf. An. 5.8.8 and 5.8.20), but normally displays no hybris, especially—he underlines—in the present, relatively peaceful circumstances when he could easily yield to it (5.8.19; cf. §1 on 5.8.4). The educational, exemplary value of this declaration emerges if we compare it to a passage from the Cyropaedia according to which subjects are motivated to imitate a leader whom they see practising sôphrosynê when he could rather indulge in hybris (8.1.30 ᾧ μάλιστα ἔξεστιν ὑβρίζειν, τοῦτον σωφρονοῦντα);Footnote ⁴¹ the disposition evoked by Xenophon is also reminiscent of Aristotle's statement that war compels men towards justice and sôphrosynê, while peace rather leads them to hybris (Pol. 1334a25–8).Footnote ⁴²

Xenophon's own comparison to teachers and parents in the Anabasis and the values it entails are built on the awareness of his place in society, his worth and the perceived benefits of a stern but ultimately selfless way of imparting discipline when strictly necessary. Both the accuser and the defender have now appealed to a larger ‘honour group’ (respectively the tent-mates and the whole army) as a superior referent and a guarantor of their intentions.Footnote ⁴³ In the conclusion of his speech, Xenophon fosters shame even in his own honour group, once more in the interest of the whole community.

4. SHAMING THE GROUP

The final part of Xenophon's speech reproaches the whole army.Footnote ⁴⁴ This choice is already significant as the Ten Thousand were—at least originally—divided into contingents, each loyal to its own commander: normally not even Clearchus would order soldiers outside his group, and when he tried to he faced serious threats.Footnote ⁴⁵ Xenophon reminds the army that none objected when he was beating the lazy, nor did anyone help him either (An. 5.8.21): the soldiers’ inaction had allowed the basest among them to indulge in hybris (5.8.22), in relation to which Xenophon provides one more example of cowardice and greedy selfishness (5.8.23): in this case the man is named explicitly, apparently because he was a boxer of some repute.Footnote ⁴⁶ Now, urging the soldiers towards sôphrosynê (5.8.24 ἢν σωφρονῆτε, twice: cf. §3 on sôphrosynê preventing hybris), Xenophon shames them for their lack of social control and for their ingratitude towards him (5.8.25–6). As the soldiers accept their responsibilities, the episode ends in a general reconciliation, with an expression reminiscent of the words sealing Xenophon's earlier defence against slander (cf. §1 on 7.34).

Xenophon's reference to the soldiers’ (lack of) collaboration in keeping their peers in check points to an earlier measure (unanimously approved: An. 3.2.33) he had introduced shortly after Clearchus’ death, when extreme danger made the new officers much more vigilant (5.8.30 ἐπιμελεστέρους) and the soldiers much more orderly and obedient (εὐτακτοτέρους καὶ πειθομένους; §2 on eutaxia). It was established that the insubordinates had to be punished jointly by the leaders and the soldiers witnessing the infraction (5.8.31). This form of collective discipline against the kakoi (5.8.32) would turn the whole army into ‘ten thousand Clearchoi’ (5.8.31)—here, in an emergency, a desirable model—but Xenophon's formulation indicates clearly that such procedure was as unusual as necessary.Footnote ⁴⁷ The measure was applied successfully in circumstances which partially recall the mule-driver incident: during the retreat along the Tigris, some Soteridas had lamented the pains suffered by the infantry and the weight of his shield vs the relative comfort enjoyed by Xenophon, who was riding a horse (3.4.46–7; the scene might remind us—with roles reversed—of the opening scene of Aristophanes’ Frogs); Xenophon immediately swapped places with Soteridas, apparently treating him rudely (An. 3.4.48) but not hitting him: it was, however, the nearby soldiers who started to beat and insult (3.4.49 παίουσι καὶ βάλλουσι καὶ λοιδοροῦσι) Soteridas until they forced him back to his place.

5. VIOLENCE AND DISCIPLINE IN GREEK ARMIES

To situate the aforementioned episodes in the proper cultural and normative context, it is worth addressing the evidence on forms of violence within Greek armies and, to a limited extent, in Greek society. It might be useful, in part, to distinguish between institutionalized violence issuing from an authority, and spontaneous, arbitrary violence generated by private initiative,Footnote ⁴⁸ although, as we shall see, this purely modern divide is unsuited to explain some of the nuances of the Greek model.

In Athens, violence in public was strictly regulated and sanctioned, although this does not mean that it was uncommon in daily life.Footnote ⁴⁹ Unrestrained institutional punishment of free men was typically associated with abusive and/or oligarchic regimes, such as the Four Hundred (Thuc. 8.74.3) and the Thirty (Xen. Hell. 2.3.12–15; Dem. 22.52), the latter known for employing whip-bearers ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 35.1) possibly inherited from the Spartan custom (cf. Xen. Hell. 3.3.11).Footnote ⁵⁰ Some scholars have argued that violence against free men was a typically Spartan feature, unacceptable to other communities:Footnote ⁵¹ however, this assumption seems yet another by-product of the Spartan mirage, for while some of the stereotypes associated with the Spartans underline their violent attitude,Footnote ⁵² other studies have drawn attention to the abundant attestation, in chronological and spatial terms, of public magistrates carrying implements of corporal punishment, and generally to widespread examples of institutionally controlled violence in Greece.Footnote ⁵³ In Athenian theatres, rhabdouchoi were ready to enforce order (Ar. Pax 734, with schol. 734e Holwerda), just as elsewhere they would hit undisciplined athletes (for example at Olympia: Thuc. 5.50.4; cf. the general remark of Hdt. 8.59 and the comparison of ephors with tyrants and epistatai of the games in Xen. Lac. 8.4); rhabdophoroi with similar tasks are variously attested well into the Roman period (for example IG V.1 1390, lines 41–5; VII 3078); the second-century gymnasiarchical law from Beroia instructs the gymnasiarch to issue corporal punishment to those who do not obey (Epigraphes Katô Makedonias 1, Beroia 1, B, lines 8–10),Footnote ⁵⁴ a prerogative found in various educational contexts.Footnote ⁵⁵ The Spartan officers’ custom of beating soldiers with the signature baktêria, just as Clearchus does in the Anabasis (2.3.11),Footnote ⁵⁶ only appears consistent with these non-Spartan cases rather than exceptional.

This is not to deny that—as many believe—discipline in Greek armies was relatively lax, rarely enforced through top-down coercion and rather based on forms of persuasion:Footnote ⁵⁷ while violence was possible, its legitimacy was still circumscribed. Athenian stratêgoi held jurisdiction over cowardice (Lys. 14.5) and could authorize executions (threatened in Xen. Hell. 1.1.15; carried out in 1.2.13Footnote ⁵⁸ and in Lys. 13.65; see also Aen. Tact. 10.19 on mercenary armies), but it seems that their most violent prerogatives had been lost by the late fourth century ([Arist.] Ath. Pol. 61.2).Footnote ⁵⁹ Significantly, Aristotle in Politics Book 3 regards Agamemnon's threat to put soldiers to death (Il. 2.391) as a power of kings of the past (1285a6–14)—in contrast with the Spartan kings of his own time.

A different corrective rationale seems to emerge in place of, or in addition to, that of violence. In the fourth century, if we believe Polyaenus, Iphicrates punished the soldiers of generals executed for treachery by expelling them from the army, naked or at least stripped of their weapons (3.9.56 γυμνοὺς ἐξήλασε). Certainly in 394 b.c. a soldier hitting a taxiarch was not punished on the spot, but later(?) the stratêgoi resorted to public shaming (and possibly exile) by the herald to expose his poor reputation (Lys. 3.45 δόξας ἀκοσμότατος εἶναι καὶ πονηρότατος). Similarly, in the Against Conon a stratêgos simply issues a stern reproach to a group of soldiers who had behaved outrageously in camp (Dem. 54.5 λοιδορηθέντος), failing to stop them or even to elicit the sense of shame that their victim expected (τοσούτου ἐδέησαν παύσασθαι ἢ αἰσχυνθῆναι). Such emphasis on publicly displaying shameful acts is significant and consistent with the rationale of military laws we are aware of, which dealt mainly with ignominious infractions, that is, various forms of cowardice and desertion (for Athens, see especially Andoc. 1.74 on atimia; for Sparta, Thuc. 5.72.1).Footnote ⁶⁰ Hence Aristotle, as an example of acts leading to aischynê, caused by kakia and specifically by cowardice (deilia), includes throwing away the shield and fleeing (Rh. 1383b18–19; see also 1368b18 on injustice and cowardice), and discusses ‘political’ courage, produced by aidôs, as second-best after ‘genuine’ courage (Eth. Nic. 1116a29–b2: note the contrast with courage produced by coercion and beating). If these infractions were judged by soldiers, as it seems from Lysias (14.5), another facet of normative shame and peer pressure emerges: yet, despite the frequent accusations of cowardice in courts and the assembly, according to Xenophon actual prosecution was limited and a man proclaimed kakos in war would continue his life unchanged, de facto unpunished, everywhere in Greece except in Sparta (Lac. 9.4; cf. Lyc. 1.129–30). As for the Spartans, they did employ the same shame-based rationale as they valued willingness, aischynê and obedience in war (Brasidas in Thuc. 5.9.9; cf. 1.84.3, and 5.104 for the Melians’ delusional expectations), and Xenophon himself reports that their punishment for ataxia was based on shame (Hell. 3.19: considered a stain, κηλίς).

The passage from Lysias’ Against Simon above (3.45) brings us from institutionalized top-down violence to bottom-up outrage on the part of the soldiers against their officers, an occurrence which seems both relatively frequent and rarely, if ever, seriously punished. The murder of civilians(?) by a hipparch of the Thirty provoked a strong—albeit rather vague—reaction by his own horsemen (Hell. 2.4.46 πολλῶν χαλεπῶς φερόντων). In the Anabasis alone, besides Xenophon's trial we find that a mercenary officer employing unjustified bia could face the death penalty (6.6.7 and 6.6.15: see §2; cf. 5.7.2–5 and 5.7.19–23): Clearchus himself was nearly lynched twice after attempting to impose illegitimate decisions, that is, issuing orders that breached the terms of employment (1.3.1–2) and punishing one of Menon's soldiers (5.11–12); an unnamed Arcadian later tried to have Xenophon stoned to death (7.6.10); finally, no fewer than six hundred soldiers literally forced their way onto Xenophon's expedition (8.11 συνεξέρχονται δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἄλλοι βιασάμενοι) simply because they felt they were being left out of a profitable raid. The last episode could be easily explained in terms of mercenary mentality, but again it is worth noting that the same attitude, based on reciprocity, desert and mutual claims, can be found already in Homer.Footnote ⁶¹ In all these cases legitimacy emerges as a central issue, to the point that its (real or perceived) absence in an officer's decisions could justify violent reactions from the soldiers. Both institutionally enforced, top-down violence and spontaneous, bottom-up retaliatory violence could be seen as appropriate, forming mutually entwined dynamics underpinned by moral and social norms.

All things considered, the issue is not whether Greek officials had the prerogative of using violence—the evidence clearly shows that they did. However, it also proves that they were invariably held accountable whenever they recurred to it according to the rule of law.Footnote ⁶² Gratuitous violence, or even the perceived infraction of a contractual relationship on the part of an officer, could result in soldiers legitimately refusing to obey and even retaliating. Xenophon won the debate in An. 5.8 by justifying his use of violence and by proving that he had respected his obligations as an officer. As part of his process he shamed the soldiers who, on the other hand, had failed to exercise control on deviant behaviour: as we draw conclusions, we shall go back to the original setting of Xenophon's incident with the mule-driver to further frame these dynamics.