Battle of Chaeronea

[Ozymandias]

In this battle, Sulla, with ~16,500 men (plus Greek Allies), defeated Archelaus's Pontic army of ~110,000 men. Furthermore, Plutarch says that Sulla sustained only 12 casualties while killing 100,000 of Archelaus's men. My question is, was this feat possible with Roman tactics or did Plutarch mess up the numbers?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Question: what do you think yourself? :inquisitive:

[cmacq]

Did you check the Ῥωμαικα by Αππιανος? However, I'm not really sure if this second Chaeronea should actually be called a battle? More like the running of the Bull? Did you read the discription of the fight? I believe both authors may have made a distiction between Sulla's command and those of Ericius, Murena, Galba, and Hortensius, although the laters' KIAs were not mentioned?

[Reverend Joe]

In this battle, Sulla, with ~16,500 men (plus Greek Allies), defeated Archelaus's Pontic army of ~110,000 men. Furthermore, Plutarch says that Sulla sustained only 12 casualties while killing 100,000 of Archelaus's men. My question is, was this feat possible with Roman tactics or did Plutarch mess up the numbers?
The Romans were all ninjas. And the Greeks were godless Commie bastards.

[cmacq]

Actually, by your reckoning, the Greeks for the most part, seemed to have been on the side of the ninja. After reading Plutarch's description in 'Σύλλας,' there seems to be several problems with the given outline of the battle, in the Loeb 1914 edition. Yet, you do know where Plutarch was from?

[Eduorius]

Sulla had artillery and had made trenches to stop the cavalry for this battle.

He was in numerical disadvantage, but he was more than well prepared for this battle. I do believe in numerical exaggeration by the Romans, but I also believe this is what it would be called an "Heroic Victory" for Sulla.

[tapanojum]

they all had Kalashnikovs

[Severian Huizi]

they all had Kalashnikovs

Wasn't that the premise of a particularly awful Harry Turtledove piece?

[cmacq]

Wasn't Plutarch from Chaeronea? Also...

wasn't Plutarch's account of the 'Chaeronea Run' taken from a journal or lost book written by Sulla?
I think the text states that Sulla's personal command consisted only of the horse located on the right flank of the Roman army. Possibly, he may have picked up an infantry cohort during the course of the fight, but the collapse transpired so quickly it doesn't seem as if it actually engaged, other than running down the paniced enemy.

Finally, the text states, 'Sulla says he missed only fourteen of his soldiers, and that afterwards, towards evening, two of these came in.' In truth, the text did not mention the Roman KIAs, only the missing, no? I might look at the Greek text, to see what it actually says?

And...

we have 'Sulla says in his Memoirs, that he missed only fourteen of his own soldiers, and that ten of them showed themselves in the evening;' from the Stewart and Long 2004 translation.

Tell me what it says?

ὁ δὲ Σύλλας λέγει τέσσαρας καὶ δέκα ἐπιζητῆσαι τῶν αὐτοῦ στρατιωτῶν, εἶτα καὶ τούτων δύο πρὸς τὴν ἑσπέραν παραγενέσθαι.

I get...

'That Sulla says he missed fourteen of his soldiers, and when towards evening, of these two became accounted for'.

τέσσαρας καὶ δέκα Four and ten and δύο two

[Long lost Caesar]

im pretty sure that means men who fled the battlefield or were MIA. and as for the idea sulla lost 12 men....:laugh4:

[Hax]

Maybe this is the ancient Rome version of the movie 300 now?

[cmacq]

As Plutarch was born and grew up in Chaeronea he must have seen the monuments and heard the local stories. Again, his text never actually stated how many Romans and Greeks were killed in this second Chaeronea, just the few that went missing.

[Thaatu]

we have 'Sulla says in his Memoirs, that he missed only fourteen of his own soldiers, and that ten of them showed themselves in the evening;' from the Stewart and Long 2004 translation.
Is that the actual quote from the translation? In English "to miss someone" is different from "gone missing". From the translation I'd gather that the point is only a few high ranking soldiers or friends of his were among the casualties. What does the original text say? Surely the Greek version is clearer on whether the fourteen were missing or being missed.

[cmacq]

Good question. Trust me, I'm not totally sure, as I'm not familiar with this form of the word; 'ἐπιζητῆσαι.' I think in the Latin font its 'epizit- nsai,' which may be from the root επιζὑτ or epizêt meaning; seeking after, craving, missed, and desire.

Again, here is the line with the word in bold.

ὁ δὲ Σύλλας λέγει τέσσαρας καὶ δέκα ἐπιζητῆσαι τῶν αὐτοῦ στρατιωτῶν, εἶτα καὶ τούτων δύο πρὸς τὴν ἑσπέραν παραγενέσθαι.

I rendered it as...

'That Sulla says he missed fourteen of his soldiers, and when towards evening, of these two became present/accounted for'.

which is very similar to...

'Sulla says he missed only fourteen of his soldiers, and that afterwards, towards evening, two of these came in.

the Loeb 1914 edition.

I've now translated many of these types of accounts, and I get the feeling they were meant to be released to the general public. Possibly, much like a weekly news report, fresh from the front? A winning general may not have wanted the public or enemy to know the actual number of their losses. If so, Plutarch may only have had these reports, in journal form, and not Sulla's manning or status reports. The way the Senate often acted, and the Marius faction, he most likely never informed his own government either.

Maybe someone more versed in Plutarch's style of Greek could provide some help?

[Tellos Athenaios]

You will probably find this link useful: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2339376

First of all the word Zeteo (first e is actually an eta, the other one is an epsilon - mind you this form is purely dicitonary language, for contraction would apply) means "to search" ("to seek"), "to miss" (in a manner of speaking). It is, to my knowledge, not a really emotional term though it can be used in conjunction with dire needs. As in "seeking a way out of here", "seeking to escape", "seeking a solution to 'haima' or 'aischunen' ".

So let's look at the raw form: inf, act, aor, of [epi]zeteo. "To [have] search[ed]/miss[ed]". Finally there's the little addition epi, which does AFAIK nothing but emphasise the effort spent on searching [those guys]. "And Sulla says to have searched [for] fourteen of his own soldiers, and next that towards the evening two among them have come [to him]." Or, and that's the joy of aoristi of the verb for 'to be' (because there aren't any!): "...them were present [again, only for the sake of proper English for the Greek itself does not speek of the word again]".

--

Now, anyone who's going to interpret that piece of ancient Greek must remember that Ploutarchos does not present this as a matter of fact, but as something brought to you by his sources. Then it is somewhat striking to see the use of the praesens in a sentence about something definitely of the past.

Without further context it is not possible to say for sure, but there are two possibilities:
1) Sulla the man who did this, I mean what better source can I give?
2) Yes, well that's how Sulla told the story, anyway.

The sentence definitely does not mean Sulla merely read yet another tedious report of the day-to-day business of his army. But anyway it is doubtful whether or not Ploutarchos has taken even the slightest effort to actually verify his sources for the 'battle report'.

--

EDIT: There's a second option for rendering the verb epizetesai: "to have begun/begin searching " (as aoristus ingressivus it would fit with the word heita, which means 'next'/'later'). So quite possibly the sentence may be better read as "And Sulla says to have begun searching [for] fourteen of his own soldiers, and that two of them turned up later towards the evening."

[cmacq]

Thanks Tellos,

I'm convinced. 'Begun searching' sounds good to me, well done.

Now I found this in Sulla, Chapter 17, line 1.

δὲ Σύλλας αὐτὸς ἐν δεκάτῳ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων γέγραφε

which I render...

'moreover Sulla by his own hand in the tenth completed book of his memoirs'

I believe this was Plutarch's primary source for the 2nd Chaeronea ?

[Rodion Romanovich]

they all had Kalashnikovs
Wrong, they had Bear cavalry!

http://images.google.se/url?q=http://66.81.80.139/Bobinator45a6be60b76e2.jpg&usg=AFQjCNG15HVj7jQdS78wgYTAroGhJ4aucg

[Tellos Athenaios]

Thanks Tellos,

I'm convinced. 'Begun searching' sounds good to me, well done.

Now I found this in Sulla, Chapter 17, line 1.

δὲ Σύλλας αὐτὸς ἐν δεκάτῳ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων γέγραφε

which I render...

'moreover Sulla by his own hand in the tenth completed book of his memoirs'

I believe this was Plutarch's primary source for the 2nd Chaeronea ?

This is definitely a 'footnote' of sorts. :yes:

You see the plural ὑπομνημάτων (I love my dicitonary) has the meaning of 'written accounts', as in 'memoirs'. The last word, though does not refer to the book - it's the business Sulla did with that book. It would be good to know what the sentence connector δὲ exactly refers to. If it is the little word 'men' , then Ploutarchos probably meant 'moreover'. Otherwise it may be better to render it as 'And', 'But' or to omit the word at all.

So I would render it as: "[As] Sulla himself wrote [this] in vol.10 of his memoirs".

Whether or not he only used this account is not certain, of course - but given that he strongly emphasises the 'eye-witness account' of mr. Sulla himself....

EDIT: To see for yourself how I get this 'vol.10.' thingy from 'dekatoi': http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2323914 (II, 5, with respect to II, 2, and the context of the sentence.)

[cmacq]

You're right I had a little trouble with both ὑπομνημάτων and γέγραφε. I knew γέγραφε could mean wrote or published and ὑπομνημάτων, memoirs. What threw me was indeed δεκάτῳ. I though it was simply tenth, not tenth part (thus part infers a volume or book), so I somehow took a verb and made it a noun?


I'm not sure if you have a complete copy of Sulla. If not this is the complete thread from chapter 17:

περὶ ὧν οἱ μὲν ἐπιχώριοι πλείονα λέγουσιν· ὡς δὲ Σύλλας αὐτὸς ἐν δεκάτῳ τῶν ὑπομνημάτων γέγραφε, Κόϊντος Τίτιος, οὐκ ἀφανὴς ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐν τῇ ῾Ελλάδι πραγματευομένων, ἧκε πρὸς αὐτὸν ἤδη τὴν ἐν Χαιρωνείᾳ νενικηκότα μάχην, ἀπαγγέλλων ὅτι καὶ δευτέραν ὁ Τροφώνιος αὐτόθι μάχην καὶ νίκην προσημαίνει ἐντὸς ὀλίγου χρόνου.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ah that clears things up. Beautiful Greek there: ὡς + ind.perf. -> After [] had ...

So it should've been

"About those things, the local people say [that]: after Sulla himself had written in part 10 of his report/account, K. T. [... insert irrelevant factoid meta-data here...], was sent for him after he [read: Sulla] had won the battle at Chaironeia, bringing word that the T. indicated both a second battle and victory on the [very same] spot within a short time."

Links:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2390046
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2317731
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23105574

Note that T. is the (legendary) founder of *the* temple of Delpi, who in turn had a cult & oracle of his own. So T. should be taken to mean the 'oracle of T.', I think.
Finally note the odd " ἧκε " : ind.aor.act.3rd pers.sg. of "hiemi", may also be translated as 'spoke to' i.e. "spoke to him".

[cmacq]

Tellos, you're right, it would have to be 'oracle of Trophonios.'
This would have been a very important event for Sulla.

For others

K.T.
Κόϊντος Τίτιος = Qvintvs Titivs

T.
Τροφώνιος = Trophonios

irrelevant factoid
Κόϊντος Τίτιος, οὐκ ἀφανὴς ἀνὴρ τῶν ἐν τῇ ῾Ελλάδι πραγματευομένων,
Qvintvs Titivs, a not so obscure [Italian] man about his business in the Hellas,

I think that may be close?

[Tellos Athenaios]

"not an unknown man among those engaged in Hellas", yes. That's a classic example of genitivus partitivus there for those versed in the grammar trade. Plus a bonus litotes. Proper ancient Greek for you: I think "not unknown" is the single most common way of saying "well known" (i.e. it goes without saying who I mean exactly).

[cmacq]

Juba the Numidi

It seems that Plutarch also used part of a 'lost history' by Juba II, king of Mauritania, son of Juba I, for his account of Sulla's victory at Chaeronea.


Profile of Juba ii (left) and his wife Cleopatra Selene ii (right), daughter of Marcvs Antonivs Creticvs and Cleopatra (vii) Thea Philopator.

http://www.snible.org/coins/hn/figs/fig399.jpg

or the head fragment of his bust

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Portrait_Juba_II_Louvre_Ma1886.jpg/180px-Portrait_Juba_II_Louvre_Ma1886.jpg


From Plutarch's Sulla; chapter 16, end of line 8.

ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιόβας οὐ Γαβίνιόν φησι πεμφθῆναι, ἀλλὰ ᾿Ερίκιον. ἡ μὲν οὖν πόλις ἡμῶν παρὰ τοσοῦτον ἐξέφυγε τὸν κίνδυνον.


However, Iuba asserted that Gabinivs [was] not sent forth, rather [it was] Ericivs. Whomever, yes indeed [did] one’s city of birth, escape the danger so near at hand.

I think 'ἡ μὲν' means 'the former' and its a reference to both Gabinivs and Ericivs?

The city of birth mentioned above is Plutarch's home town, Chaeronea.

[cmacq]

Here is Appian's account of the 2nd Chaeronea from his Ῥωμαικα; Roman History. Although no numbers are given in the descriptive part, this account indicates that the Roman casualties were substantial. Sadly, this is contradicted further in the After Action part of the translation. I’ll see if I can find a copy of the Greek text, and actually see what it says. It also states that most of the Pontic losses were POWs.

[§41] [86] Thence Archelaus withdrew to Thessaly by way of Boeotia and drew what was left of his entire forces together at Thermopylae, both his own and those brought by Dromichiaetes. He also united with his command the army that had invaded Macedonia under Arcathias, the son of king Mithridates[VI Eupator of Pontus], which was fresh and at nearly its full strength, and had lately received recruits from Mithridates; for he never ceased sending forward reinforcements.
While Archelaus was hastily gathering these forces, [the Roman commander Lucius Cornelius] Sulla burned Piraeus, which had given him more trouble than the city of Athens, not sparing the arsenal, or the navy yard, or any other of its famous belongings.

Then he marched against Archelaus, proceeding also by way of Boeotia. As they neared each other, the forces of Archelaus just from Thermopylae advanced into Phocis, consisting of Thracian, Pontic, Scythian, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Galatian, and Phrygian troops, and others from Mithridates' newly acquired territory, in all 120,000 men. Each nationality had its own general, but Archelaus had supreme command over all. Sulla's forces were Italians and some Greeks and Macedonians, who had lately deserted Archelaus and come over to him, and a few others from the surrounding country, but they were not one third the number of the enemy.

[§42] When they had taken position opposite each other Archelaus repeatedly led out his forces and offered battle. Sulla hesitated on account of the nature of the ground and the numbers of the enemy. When Archelaus moved toward Chalcis Sulla followed him closely, watching for a favorable time and place. When he saw the enemy encamped in a rocky region near Chaeronea, where there was no chance of escape for the vanquished, he took possession of a broad plain nearby and drew up his forces in such a way that he could compel Archelaus to fight whether he wanted to or not, and where the slope of the plain favored the Romans either in advancing or retreating.

Archelaus was hedged in by rocks which, in a battle, would not allow his whole army to act in concert, as he could not bring them together by reason of the unevenness of the ground; and if they were routed their flight would be impeded by the rocks. Relying for these reasons on his advantage of position Sulla moved forward in such a way that the enemy's superiority of numbers should not be of any service to him.[1]

Archelaus did not dream of coming to an engagement at that time, for which reason he had been careless in choosing the place for his camp. Now that the Romans were advancing he perceived sorrowfully and too late the badness of his position, and he sent forward a detachment of horse to prevent the movement. The detachment was put to flight and shattered among the rocks. He next charged with sixty chariots, hoping to sever and break in pieces the formation of the legions by the shock. The Romans opened their ranks and the chariots were carried through by their own momentum to the rear, and before they could turn back they were surrounded and destroyed by the javelins of the rear guard.

[§43] Although Archelaus might have fought safely from his fortified camp, where the crags would perhaps have defended him, he hastily led out his vast multitude of men who had not expected to fight here, and drew them up, in a place that had proved much too narrow, because Sulla was already approaching. He first made a powerful charge with his horse, cut the Roman formation in two, and, by reason of the smallness of their numbers, completely surrounded both parts.

The Romans turned their faces to the enemy on all sides and fought bravely. The divisions of Galba and Hortensius suffered most since Archelaus led the battle against them in person, and the barbarians fighting under the eye of the commander were spurred by emulation to the highest pitch of valor. But Sulla moved to their aid with a large body of horse and Archelaus, feeling sure that it was Sulla who was approaching, for he saw the standards of the commander-in-chief, and a greater cloud of dust arising, released his grasp and began to resume his first position.

Sulla, leading the best part of his horse and picking up two new cohorts that had been placed in reserve, struck the enemy before they had executed their maneuver and formed a solid front. He threw them into confusion, put them to flight, and pursued them. While victory was dawning on that side, [Lucius Licinius] Murena, who commanded the left wing, was not idle. Chiding his soldiers for their remissness he, too, dashed upon the enemy valiantly and put them to flight.

[§44] When Archelaus' two wings gave way, the center no longer held its ground, but took to promiscuous flight. Then everything that Sulla had foreseen befell the enemy. Not having room to turn around, or an open country for flight, they were driven by their pursuers among the rocks. Some of them rushed into the hands of the Romans.

Others with more wisdom fled toward their own camp. Archelaus placed himself in front of them and barred the entrance, and ordered them to turn and face the enemy, thus betraying the greatest inexperience of the exigencies of war. They obeyed him with alacrity, but as they no longer had either generals to lead, or officers to align them, or standards to show where they belonged, but were scattered in disorderly rout, and had no room either to fly or to fight, the pursuit having brought them into their very narrowest place, they were killed without resistance, some by the enemy, upon whom they could not retaliate, and others by their own friends in the jam and confusion.

Again they fled toward the gates of the camp, around which they became congested. They up braided the gate-keepers. They appealed to them in the name of their country's gods and their common relationship, and reproached them that they were slaughtered not so much by the swords of the enemy as by the indifference of their friends. Finally Archelaus, after more delay than was necessary, opened the gates and received the disorganized runaways. When the Romans observed this they gave a great cheer, burst into the camp with the fugitives, and made their victory complete.

[§45] Archelaus and the rest, who made their escape singly, came together at Chalcis. Not more than 10,000 of the 120,000 remained. The Roman loss was only fifteen, and two of these turned up afterward. Such was the result of the battle of Chaeronea between Sulla and Archelaus, the general of Mithridates, to which the sagacity of Sulla and the blundering of Archelaus contributed in equal measure.

Sulla captured a large number of prisoners and a great quantity of arms and spoils, the useless part of which he put in a heap. Then he girded himself according to the Roman custom and burned it as a sacrifice to the gods of war.

[cmacq]

Right, here is the Greek text for Appian's Roman History: The Mithridatic Wars

Αππιανος Ῥωμαικα Μιτηριδατειοσ

Chapter 45 Αρψηελαοσ δε και ηοσοι αλλοι κατα μεροσ εχεπηυγον· εσ Ψηαλκιδα συνελεγοντο· ου πολυ πλειουσ μυριὀν εκ δὀδεκα μυριαδὀν γενομενοι, Ρηὀμαιὀν δε εδοχαν μεν αποτηανειν πεντεκαιδεκα ανδρεσ· δυο δ᾿ αυτὀν επανὑλτηον, τουτο μεν δὑ Συλλαι και Αρψηελαὀι τὀι Μιτηριδατου στρατὑγὀι τὑσ περι Ψηαιρὀνειαν μαψηὑσ τελοσ ὑν· δι᾿ ευβουλιαν δὑ μαλιστα Συλλα και δι᾿ απηροσυνὑν Αρψηελαου τοιονδε ηεκατερὀι γενομενον, Συλλασ δε πολλὀν μεν αιψημαλὀτὀν πολλὀν δ᾿ ηοπλὀν και λειασ κρατὀν· τα μεν αψηρεια σὀρευτηεντα· διαζὀσαμενοσ ηὀσ ετηοσ εστι Ρηὀμαιοισ· αυτοσ ενεπρὑσε τοισ ενυαλιοισ τηεοισ· αναπαυσασ δε τὑν στρατιαν επ᾿ ολιγον· εσ τον Ευριπον συν ευζὀνοισ επι τον Αρψηελαον ὑπειγετο, Ρηὀμαιὀν δε ναυσ ουκ εψηοντὀν· αδεὀσ τασ νὑσουσ περιεπλει τα παραλια πορτηὀν, Ζακυντηὀι δ᾿ εκβασ παρεστρατοπεδευσεν, και τινὀν Ρηὀμαιὀν· ηοι επεδὑμουν· νυκτοσ επιτηεμενὀν αυτὀι· κατα ταψηοσ εσβασ αυτηισ ανὑγετο εσ Ψηαλκιδα· λὑιστευοντι μαλλον ὑ πολεμουντι εοικὀσ,

Now,the thread in question...
Αρψηελαοσ δε και ηοσοι αλλοι κατα μεροσ εχεπηυγον· εσ Ψηαλκιδα συνελεγοντο· ου πολυ πλειουσ μυριὀν εκ δὀδεκα μυριαδὀν γενομενοι, Ρηὀμαιὀν δε εδοχαν μεν αποτηανειν πεντεκαιδεκα ανδρεσ· δυο δ᾿ αυτὀν επανὑλτηον,

Rendered
Archelaus and all the others excaped divided, in Chalcis from a multitude of one hundred twenty thusand, collected [the] remaining ten thusand. However on the other hand, the Ramans suposed fifteen men [were] dead, of these two returned [alive],

In Plutarch's Σύλλας it was ἐπιζητῆσαι and in the Ῥωμαικα its αποτηανειν. I don't understand why the two accounts don't jive?

[cmacq]

Tellos did I mistranslate αποτηανειν? Die, dead, or killed?

[Tellos Athenaios]

It looks like your quote is pretty messed up. Quite a few instances where I'd expect a spiritus asper or aspirated consonant returns an eta; and the chi I see in 'edochan' better be replace with an xsi according to my gut feeling.

The latter would explain everything; since "edoxan" would indicate "thought that they had died".

[cmacq]

No, you're right... its actually εδοξαν.

It was the Athenian font I had that made it εδοχαν.

I'l use another font, hows this...

Αρχηελαοσ δε και ηοσοι αλλοι κατα μεροσ εξεπηυγον, εσ Χηαλκιδα συνελεγοντο, ου πολυ πλειουσ μυριἔν εκ δἔδεκα μυριαδἔν γενομενοι. Ρηἔμαιἔν δε εδοξαν μεν αποτηανειν πεντεκαιδεκα ανδρεσ, δυο δ᾿ αυτἔν επανἶλτηον.

Now, I had suposed, which was a sp as I meant supposed, which is the same as 'thought'...

so that explains it. Appian didn't say 15 were killed, he said they thought 15 were...

Thus, both Plutarch and Appian did in fact say about the same thing and neither actually mentioned the number of KIAs on either side, right?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yup. Though I still have my doubts about the other font as well: that eta weirdness is still there. Now apart from the mutilated sigmata at the end of certain words, at some places a weird epsilon has appeared in replacement of what used to be an omikron and should've been an omega if I understand the sentence correctly:

"...And among the Romans they (initially) thought 15 men had died, but two of them..."


(Which incidentally may refer to Archelaos' men; at least the way it's put indicates such a possibility. For there is no agent in the second sentence; and it so happens that the previous one contains a perfectly valid candidate to act as agent in the second as well - though the word order somewhat contradicts it. In any case this fragment might not pass the rigor of contemporary rhetoric. :grin:)

[cmacq]

Right, the word order and I need to find a proper copy.

Yet, we have a similar reference from Plutarch's Sulla in good Greek. Thus, we know the searched for, missing, or thought dead' men were Romans. Also, there never was a mention of the Pontic KIAs, just the approximate number of men that Archelaos was able to collect in Chalcis after his retreat.

Maybe someone should edit a text book or two and that PoC wiki description of the 2nd Chaeronea?