Page:History of Greece Vol X.djvu/366

344 HISTORY OF GREECE. and fled also. The centre and right of Epaminondas, being on a less advanced front, hardly came into conflict with the enemy un- til the impression of his charge had been felt, and therefore found the troops opposed to them already wavering and disheartened. The Achaean, Eleian, and other infantry on that side, gave way after a short resistance ; chiefly as it would appear, from conta- gion and alarm, when they saw the Lacedaemonians broken. The Athenians however, especially the cavalry, on the left wing of their own army, seem to have been engaged in serious encounter with the cavalry opposite to them. Diodorus affirms them to have been beaten, after a gallant fight, 1 until the Eleian cavalry from the right came to their aid. Here, as on many other points, it is difficult to reconcile his narrative with Xenophon, who plainly in- timates that the stress of the action fell on the Tb,ban left and Lacedaemonian right and centre, and from whose narrative we should rather have gathered, that the Eleian cavalry, beaten on their own right, may have been aided by the Athenian cavalry from the left ; reversing the statement of Diodoms. In regard to this important battle, however^ H'e cannot grasp with confidence anything beyond the capital determining feature and the ultimate result. 2 The calculations o* Epaminondas were 1 Diodor. xv, 85. The orator ^Eschines fought among the Athrrvin hoplitcs on this occa- sion (.ZEschines, Fals. Leg. p. 300. c. 53.) 2 The remark made by Polybius upon this lattle deserves notice. He states that the description given of the bat'.K by Ephorus was extremely incorrect and absurd, arguing great ignorance both of the ground where it was fought and of the possible movement of the armies. He says that Ephorus had displayed the like incomre'.ence also in describing the battle of Leuktra ; in which case, however, his narrative was less misleading, because that battle was simple and eof iiy intelligible, involving movements only of one wing of each army. Brt in regard to the battle of Mantinca 'he says), the misdescription of Ejrhorus was of far more deplorable effect- because that battle exhibited n>:ch complication and generalship, which Ephorus did not at all compreV.nd, as might be seen by any one who meas ured the ground and studied <]r& movements reported in his narrative (Poly bius, xii, 25). Polybius adds that T!KT /ompus and Timseus were as little to be trusted in the description of IP? 1-battles as Ephorus. Whether this remark has special application to fhe battle of Mantinea, I do not clearly make oat H' ft'ves credit bov.r;er to Ephorus for greater ji dgment and accuracy, ir ' i -irr > nS ^ 't r naval battles.