As the editor of the new Budé edition of Diodorus Siculus 19 has said, R is ‘the more often correct’ of the two main manuscripts and the other, F, has a number of acceptable variants; and she reckons the division between R and F to have been ‘fairly ancient’. All other manuscripts are merely copies, more or less faithful, of R and F. For the passage which I wish to consider I quote the text as given in R.

As the editor of the new Budé edition of Diodorus Siculus 19 has said, R is ‘the more often correct’ of the two main manuscripts and the other, F, has a number of acceptable variants; and she reckons the division between R and F to have been ‘fairly ancient’. All other manuscripts are merely copies, more or less faithful, of R and F. For the passage which I wish to consider I quote the text as given in R.

A proper understanding of any military establishment is predicated on a sound understanding of the distinctions of its various components, including the relationship of elite units to those of lesser standing. The infantry of Achaemenid Persia has been given increased attention in recent years, especially in my three recent articles on (a) the permanent Achaemenid infantry, these being the 10,000 so-called Immortals (ἀθάνατοι) and the 1,000 Apple Bearers (μηλοφόροι), (b) the κάρδακες, whom I identified as a kind of general-purpose infantry (...) of indeterminate ethnicity, and (c) the defensive equipment of Achaemenid infantry. In these articles, the Persian cavalry, orasabārain Old Persian, was mentioned in passing, yet a thorough appraisal of elite Achaemenid cavalry is still required. For example, in his overview of Xerxes' army, Barkworth pays particular attention to the elite infantry, but the cavalry is mentioned only in passing, while Shabazi, in his entry on the Achaemenid army orspāda, does not mention elite cavalry at all. In a recent important study, Tuplin looked carefully at the evidence for Achaemenid cavalry and the degree of importance attached to cavalry among the Persians, but only mentioned what might be termed elite cavalry twice – he did not offer any in-depth commentary on their relationship to other cavalry units. (shrink)

Le texte des comptes de l’hipparque thébain Pompidas (IG VII, 2426) a suscité de nombreux commentaires depuis son édition, sans que soient pleinement élucidées les questions qu’il soulève. On propose ici de relier deux éléments du texte qui ont toujours été étudiés séparément, à savoir la vente de deux chevaux à bas prix par l’hipparque d’une part, et la distribution de sommes d’argent plus ou moins importantes à sept personnes d’autre part, pour fournir une nouvelle interprétation du texte. Celui-ci concernerait (...) la remonte de la cavalerie thébaine : les deux chevaux sont des bêtes réformées, et l’argent fourni par l’hipparque à leurs deux propriétaires et à cinq autres personnes pourrait être une indemnité destinée à faciliter l’achat d’une monture par les cavaliers. Une comparaison est proposée avec ce qu’on sait des systèmes de remonte dans les cavaleries grecques et hellénistiques. (shrink)

Aristophanes speaks in Equites 225 f. of the rancour borne Cleon by the cavalry: The scholiast at verse 226 cites Theopompus for the explanation: The curious words were explained by Gilbert, Beitrdge, 133, as referring to Cleon's alleged entrance into the Boule of 428/7 so as to prosecute the cavalry en masse for desertion. This explanation was accepted by Jacoby in his commentary. Nevertheless, the best that can be said for it is that it is an apparently necessary (...) means of imparting some sort of meaning to an inconsequential sentence. It makes no sense to say, on the face of it, that because Cleon was angered by the cavalry ‘he attacked the constitution’ or, worse still, ‘applied himself to the politeia’. What is needed is the assertion that Cleon attacked the cavalry in some manner or other. (shrink)

Aristophanes speaks in Equites 225 f. of the rancour borne Cleon by the cavalry: The scholiast at verse 226 cites Theopompus for the explanation: The curious words were explained by Gilbert, Beitrdge, 133, as referring to Cleon's alleged entrance into the Boule of 428/7 so as to prosecute the cavalry en masse for desertion. This explanation was accepted by Jacoby in his commentary. Nevertheless, the best that can be said for it is that it is an apparently necessary (...) means of imparting some sort of meaning to an inconsequential sentence. It makes no sense to say, on the face of it, that because Cleon was angered by the cavalry ‘he attacked the constitution’ or, worse still, ‘applied himself to the politeia’. What is needed is the assertion that Cleon attacked the cavalry in some manner or other. (shrink)

For the first time in Ukrainian historiography the Battle of Legnano 29 May1176 inthe context of European origin and formation of the professional army has been analyzed in this study. In this battle the first European professional military formation, equipped and trained by the city and commune of Milan, defeated the mighty army, formed with well-armed and prepared German knights. This army was headed by the Emperor Frederick I Barbaros, who was an experienced commander. Particular attention is paid to the (...) reasons of emergence of the first professional formations and infantry evolution, which allowed to resist armored knightly cavalry. The lack of necessary resources and the inability to advance sufficient number of mighty men forced the Italian cities-communes, among which Milan was one of the largest centers of arms crafts at the end of the twelfth century, to form the army, which could be manned with the free segments of the population of not noble origin and resist knightly cavalry. In practice, this led to formation of the armored infantry, which returned to modernized ancient hoplites tactics. Readiness of such infantry which demonstrated its feasibility in the Battle of Legnano required resources and professionalism. The problems of maintaining and training of professional formations led to the search for reduction of their strength due to the efficiency of technical innovations, one of which was the use of chariots bound round with metal and manned with crew armed with fighting scythes - hizarmams. But this experiment did not justify itself or may have been devised by the later Milan chronicler Galvani Fiamma. The battle of Legnano initiated hired professional contingent of condottieres, which were widely used in Italian cities-states in the XIII-XV centuries. (shrink)

In his article ‘A Cavalry Unit in the Army of Antigonus Monophthalmus: Asthippoi’, N. G. L. Hammond argues that the reading of the manuscript R at Diodorus 19. 29. 2 should be retained and that we should read ⋯π⋯ π⋯σι δ⋯ το⋯ς τε ⋯σθ⋯ππους ⋯νομαζομ⋯νους κα⋯ τοὺς ⋯κ τ⋯ν ἄνω κατοικο⋯ντων ⋯κτακοσιο⋯ς. The readings of F and its copy X, ⋯νθ⋯ππους, and the commonly accepted conjecture of Wesseling ⋯μɸ⋯ππους, should both be abandoned. Hammond's arguments for retaining this reading are (...) that between the variant readings of R and F, R ‘is the more often correct’ ; ⋯σθ⋯ππους, the reading of R, is preferable to F's ⋯νθ⋯ππους on the principle of ‘lectio difficilior’; the ‘difficulty’ of his lectio difficilior is made less by the arguments presented by A. B. Bosworth, 245 ff.), for the restoration at several places in the text of Arrian's Anabasis the word ⋯σθ⋯ταιροι, in place of the editorial emendation of πεζ⋯ταιροι. ‘For just as asthetairoi meant an élite group of Macedonian infantrymen,’ says Hammond, ‘so asthippoi should mean an élite group of Macedonian cavalrymen.’ He then proceeds to examine the passage and its context in an attempt to find confirmation of this proposition and comes to the conclusion that Diodorus' text says that there were 800 cavalrymen, broken into two groups, the asthippoi and ‘the men from the up-country settlers’; these, though having different names, had a close relationship to each other, as is shown by their being brigaded together. Following his derivation of asthetairoi as meaning ‘townsmen-companions’, i.e. companions recruited from the towns of Upper Macedonia, he argues that asthippoi were cavalry recruited from the towns of Upper Macedonia and that τοὺς ⋯κ τ⋯ν ἄνω κατοικο⋯ντων means ‘the sons of settlers in up-country Macedonia’. These 800, says Hammond, were both among Antigonus' best troops and ‘were Macedonians from Europe’. We thus appear, on Hammond's interpretation, to have here a group of 800 Macedonian élite cavalrymen, all of whom were recruited in Upper Macedonia's townships, but of whom some were chosen to be the cavalry-equivalent of the élite ‘townsmen-companions’ by their title of ‘townsmen-cavalry’, whilst the others, similarly recruited – but perhaps of a younger generation? – had no particular distinguishing title beyond ‘sons of settlers in up-country Macedonia’.Now, while it would be exciting to be able to add another one, possibly two Macedonian cavalry units to the Macedonian army of Philip, Alexander and the Successors, there are several aspects of Hammond's arguments that, it seems to me, are less than convincing. Thus, whilst it seems beyond reasonable doubt that ⋯σθ⋯ταιροι should be retained in the text of Arrian, appearing, as it does, six times, this is not an argument that ⋯σθ⋯ππους should be read in Diodorus' text. Both it and F's reading of ⋯νθ⋯ππους are hapax legomena and it is possible that both readings are wrong. But even if we retain ⋯σθ⋯ππους as the correct reading, Hammond's explanation of its meaning is open to objection on several counts. (shrink)

Did the Carthaginian cavalry general Maharbal really urge Hannibal to march on Rome after Cannae, and then comment bitterly Vincere sets, Hannibal; victoria uti nescis, when his leader refused? There are two main objections: Maharbal may not have been there, and anyway Cannae was too far away to justify such a march. The whole story has been seen as one of those well-known Roman historiographical inventions. But there may well be more to the story than that, illuminating both Hannibalic (...) history and some Roman historiographical techniques. (shrink)

In 394 Agesilaus, treading in the footsteps of Xerxes, came from Asia by way of Thrace and Macedon into Thessaly, threw off the attacks of the Thessalian cavalry, proceeded without further trouble into Boeotia, and met the enemy at Coronea, where a great battle was fought. The question ought to have been asked before now, why was he not held up at Thermopylae?

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Three Odes HORACE (Translated by Charles Martin) To Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa No fears, Agrippa: your exploits will be Saluted by a bard who will eclipse Homer in singing your command of ships, Your winning use of cavalry. It won’t be us. Gifts far surpassing mine Are to be found in Varius, who sings Achilles’ spleen, Ulysses’ wanderings At sea, or Pelops’ nasty line. Of loftiness, we have (...) a deficit, And so our Muse forbids us to pursue Praising your glory and our Caesar’s too, Lest, overwrought, we lessen it. Varius is fit to sing of Mars arrayed In armor, of Meriones in dust, Or of those gods that Diomedes thrust His lance through, with Athena’s aid. Ours, the wine bar and the local fray, The bachelorettes whose nails leave livid traces We later notice on their boyfriends’ faces And lightly sing of, in our way. (Odes i.6) arion 28.3 winter 2021 74 threee odes To Leuconoe Stop seeking what the gods prohibit us from apprehending, Leuconoe—the date on which it all comes to an ending. Better to toss the Dream Book and accept whatever comes, Whether Jove sends more winters, or the last we’ll know now drums The Tuscan Sea into submission on opposing cliffs. Be wise—decant this evening’s wine, curtail your hopeful ifs: Live in the moment: as we speak, now is becoming then; And insofar as possible, ignore tomorrow’s, “When….” (Odes i.11) To Iccius Iccius, are you hot for Arabian Loot now, devising tactics to subjugate The previously undefeated Kings of Sabaea? Forging new fetters For the ferocious Medes while previsioning Your oriental sex-slave, unguarded by The boyfriend whom you’ve slain in battle? What perfumed page from some royal palace, Whose father taught him Sinoform archery, Will be your Ganymede? Oh, deny falling Rivers the right to scale steep mountains, Tell us the Tiber can’t flow back upstream, When you—who were once so very promising, Rush to exchange your Works of Panaetius AND those Platonic scrolls you scoured bookstalls in search of—for Spanish armor! (Odes i.29)... (shrink)

Esprit de corps is an extremely interesting research topic, as it is related to the group self-awareness of the soldiers in a given unit or sometimes even in the entire formation. A sense of uniqueness, elitism and pride in the past have been of great importance both in the training process and in maintaining high combat value in the face of battle. However, it should be noted that the “spirit of the corps” most often develops in difficult situations – it (...) is “forged in the heat of battle”. Of course, in the long run, it is also possible to educate such a community in the conditions of peace service, especially by charismatic commanders. The article describes the esprit de corps of the Polish cavalry from the times of the constitutional Kingdom of Poland and the November Uprising. As a result of the source material analysis, which was mainly based on memoirs and the previous archival research, the conclusion was drawn that in the years 1815-1831 an emotional community was formed within the cavalry corps, in both cavalry formations as well as in the individual regiments. It should be noted that until the outbreak of the November Uprising, the spirit-building process was hampered by the prior disbandment of the army of the Duchy of Warsaw and the Polish army units of the French Empire, and, in addition, due to the strict adherence to regulations. Consequently, the general cavalry esprit de corps at that time manifested itself primarily through cultivating and disseminating the memories of the events of the Napoleonic era. A strong impulse to build a “spirit of the corps” emerged after the November Night and during the combat with the Russian army, in the course of which the cavalry often distinguished itself. And even though the defeat of the November Uprising disrupted this process, it still became one of the constituent parts of the esprit de corps in the cavalry of the Second Polish Republic. (shrink)

Islam in the Ukrainian territory has more than a thousand years of history. The first Muslims who systematically lived or roamed the lands of present-day Ukraine were the steppes. Thus, the burial of the ancestors of modern Ossetian-Apans according to the Muslim rite in the eastern Ukrainian archeologists date from the VII-VIII centuries. Initial knowledge of Islam was also learned from the neighboring Bulgaria. The first written mention of the permanent stay of Muslims in Ukraine dates back to the XI (...) century, when the princes of Kiev had a cavalry of Muslim Pechenegs. Having established itself in Crimea in the XIII century, the Tatar ulus for Khan Uzbekistan officially recognized Islam as the state religion. During the entry of Kievan Rus into the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, many Muslim Tatars were brought from Crimea under martial law by order of Prince Vytautas. (shrink)

In the opening lines of Aristophanes' Acharnians, Dicaeopolis counts first among his greatest joys ‘the five talents Cleon coughed up’, and he professes his love of the Knights for this service ‘worthy of Hellas’. The ancient scholiast gave what he thought an obvious explanation from Theopompus : he tells us that Cleon was accused of taking bribes to lighten the tribute of the islanders, and he was then fined ‘because of the outrage against the Knights’. Evidently Theopompus connected the charges (...) against Cleon with some earlier proceedings instigated by Cleon against the Cavalry. There is, as often, some difficulty in determining what Theopompus said and what the scholiast inferred, and, aside from that editorial problem, the scholiast's all-too-simple solution faces at least three major objections regarding the legal and political implications of such a trial. On the strength of such objections it was long ago supposed that Dicaeopolis rejoices not at a recent political defeat for the demagogue, but in recalling a theatrical expose in Babylonians of the previous year. This theory of a stage trial, however, encounters obstacles of its own in any reconstruction of the lost play. In recent work there have been many comments but no altogether satisfactory solution on this problem. It is the view of many that Cleon indeed suffered some political defeat in the year preceding Ach.; but, by this approach, ingenious solutions are required to make sense of the scholia. The assumption of a stage-trial, involving the Knights and Cleon in Babylonians, is still found persuasive by others, but if we are to discount the fragment of Theopompus, which has supporting testimony elsewhere in the scholiastic tradition, we would like to have something more than mere inference that Cleon was tried and convicted in Babylonians. The purpose of this paper is to find a more cogent explanation for these lines in Ach. and the equally puzzling scenario in Theopompus. It will be helpful to begin with the broad outlines of the problem , and then proceed to re-examine the prevailing views, the stage-trial theory and historical theories based upon the scholia. (shrink)

My purpose is to compare the different explanations that have been offered of the expression propius periclo it timor. This is its context. Evander, king of Pallanteum, has decided to send cavalry under the command of his son Pallas to assist the Trojans and Etruscans in the war against Turnus. When a report spreads that the cavalry are about to set out, the mothers of the soldiers are alarmed. uota metu duplicant matres, propiusque periclo it timor et maior (...) Martis iam apparet imago. ‘The mothers redouble their vows in fear, fear goes closer to the danger, and the image of Mars appears greater.’ James Henry writes: ‘The women, who had previously … made vows, felt fear, and seen the image of war before them , now, when the war has thus come to their very door, … double their vows, feel a sharper fear, and see their picture, image, or idea of war larger than it was before. ‘But propius periclo it has been explained in other ways. Some think periclo dative, other ablative. Conington increases the confusion by citing the explanations of Heyne and Wagner as if they were compatible with his own translation. (shrink)

One of the most enigmatic figures in Macedonian history is Alexander of Lyncestis, son of Aeropus and son-in-law of the great Antipater. During the reign of his royal namesake he achieved sensational prominence, deposed from his command of the élite Thessalian cavalry under suspicion of treasonable correspondence with the Persian court. Still more sensational, however, is his involvement in the murder of Philip II. Our sources are unanimous that together with his brothers, Heromenes and Arrhabaeus, he was party to (...) the murder, but secured pardon by his immediate recognition of Alexander as king.The immediate recognition is certain, the participation in the murder much less so. (shrink)

In the opening lines of Aristophanes'Acharnians, Dicaeopolis counts first among his greatest joys ‘the five talents Cleon coughed up’, and he professes his love of the Knights for this service ‘worthy of Hellas’. The ancient scholiast gave what he thought an obvious explanation from Theopompus (F 94): he tells us that Cleon was accused of taking bribes to lighten the tribute of the islanders, and he was then fined ‘because of the outrage (ὑβρ⋯ζειν) against the Knights’. Evidently Theopompus connected the (...) charges against Cleon with some earlier proceedings instigated by Cleon against the Cavalry. There is, as often, some difficulty in determining what Theopompus said and what the scholiast inferred, and, aside from that editorial problem, the scholiast's all-too-simple solution faces at least three major objections regarding the legal and political implications of such a trial. On the strength of such objections it was long ago supposed that Dicaeopolis rejoices not at a recent political defeat for the demagogue, but in recalling a theatrical expose inBabyloniansof the previous year. This theory of a stage trial, however, encounters obstacles of its own in any reconstruction of the lost play. In recent work there have been many comments but no altogether satisfactory solution on this problem. It is the view of many that Cleon indeed suffered some political defeat in the year precedingAch.; but, by this approach, ingenious solutions are required to make sense of the scholia. The assumption of a stage-trial, involving the Knights and Cleon inBabylonians, is still found persuasive by others, but if we are to discount the fragment of Theopompus, which has supporting testimony elsewhere in the scholiastic tradition, we would like to have something more than mere inference that Cleon was tried and convicted inBabylonians. The purpose of this paper is to find a more cogent explanation for these lines inAch.and the equally puzzling scenario in Theopompus. It will be helpful to begin with the broad outlines of the problem (section I), and then proceed to re-examine the prevailing views, the stage-trial theory (II) and historical theories based upon the scholia (III). (shrink)

Contrary to appearances, Machiavelli's Art of War is a carefully ordered whole. The order of treatment of topics in the body of the work deviates from the order initially proposed by the dialogue's main interlocutor, yet it strictly follows another order, inscribed in the text itself, which is neither accidental nor dependent on any ancient source. A clear understanding of this new order, and of the dramatic event that precipitates it, illuminates key questions, including the work's dialogic character, its relation (...) to its ancient sources, Machiavelli's apparent deprecation of cavalry as opposed to infantry, and, most importantly, Machiavelli's own long-term impresa to blaze an altogether new path in political thought. More specifically, attention to the order of the military section suggests that the dialogue's main speaker and his young interlocutors become the commanders of an army-in-speech on the march against an entire way of life whose origins are found in Christianity. (shrink)

Evander promises Aeneas two hundred of his Arcadians for the war against the Italians, with as many cavalry under Pallas into the bargain; and puts his son under the Trojan leader's command: hunc tibi praeterea, spes et solacia nostri, Pallanta adiungam; sub te tolerare magistro militiam et graue Martis opus, tua cernere facta adsuescat, primis et te miretur ab annis.

Evander promises Aeneas two hundred of his Arcadians for the war against the Italians, with as many cavalry under Pallas into the bargain; and puts his son under the Trojan leader's command:hunc tibi praeterea, spes et solacia nostri,Pallanta adiungam; sub te tolerare magistromilitiam et graue Martis opus, tua cernere factaadsuescat, primis et te miretur ab annis.

This article examines the reform of the comitia centuriata in the mid to late third century b.c.e. This involved demoting in voting order the six most prestigious cavalry centuries, distributing the centuries of the first class two per tribe, and assigning one tribe's iuniores to vote first as the centuria praerogatiua. The article argues that this gave more equitable representation to rich citizens from more distant parts of Roman territory, but still preserved the essential military character of the assembly (...) by ensuring that the serving men voted first in any election for consuls and praetors. (shrink)

At the end of the catalogue of Italian troops comes Camilla, the warrior-maid, leading her columns of Volscian cavalry. In a passage reminiscent of ll. 20.226ff. Vergil illustrates her seemingly superhuman speed and lightness of foot, before passing on to the impression she made upon the watching population who have swarmed out of their homes and fields to mark the finery of her appearance and equipment: illam omnis tectis agrisque effusa iuventus turbaque miratur matrum et prospectat euntem, attonitis inhians (...) animis ut regius ostro velet honos levis umeros, ut fibula crinem auro internectat, Lyciam ut gerat ipsa pharetram et pastoralem praefixa cuspide myrtum. (shrink)

Path dependency is a most valuable tool for understanding Russian history since 1480, which coincides with the ending of the “Mongol yoke,” Moscow’s annexation of northwest Russia, formerly controlled by Novgorod, and the introduction of a new method for financing the cavalry—the core of a new service class. The cavalry had to hold off formidable adversaries for Muscovy to retain its independence. Russia in 1480 was a poor country lacking subsurface mineral resources and with a very poor climate (...) and soil for the support of agriculture. These basic problems inspired autocratic power and by 1515 an ideology was in place justifying it. Religion, literature, and law were employed to support the autocracy. A variant of a caste society was created to support the army. This made up the substance of the first service-class revolution in which all resources were mobilized to support a garrison state. After 1667 the external threats to Muscovy diminished, but the service class kept its privileges, especially the land fund and the peasant-serfs. Russia faced major foreign threats again in 1700 and in the 1920s and 1930s. Those threats precipitated the second and third service-class revolutions. The second and third service-class revolutions broadly paralleled the first. Reinvigorated service classes were created with state institutions to support them. As society became more complex, so did the service classes and their privileges. Ideologies were converted into devices to support the infallible autocratic ruler and his elites. Almost the entire population was bound to state service, either directly, working to support the service state, or paying taxes. The church and clergy were harnessed first by Peter’s Holy Synod and then Stalin’s Department 5 of the Secret Police after he revived the church during World War II. Writers and artists were also put into uniform, until they finally rebelled—but the arts retained their civic functions, first supporting the regime, and then criticizing it. Finally, law retained its traditional programmatic functions in regimes themselves beholden to no law. As the foreign threats diminished, the service classes lost their function, but the elite servicemen kept their privileges as the service states disintegrated and the service classes lost their collective élan. Both the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Empire collapsed almost without a whimper. (shrink)

This article examines the Byzantine responses to the battlefield tactics followed by the armies of the Turkoman chiefdoms during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The most characteristic example reflecting the difficulties faced by the Byzantine army when confronted by the Turkomans is the battle of Pelekanos, in the gulf of Nikomedia. It was fought in 1329 between the Byzantines under the command of the emperor Andronikos III (1328–1341), and the Ottomans whose leader was Orhan (1326–1362). The outcome of this battle (...) typifies the inability of the late Byzantine armies to deal effectively with the Turkoman cavalry archers, despite the instructions given by the military treatises which were compiled in the earlier periods of Byzantine history, despite the experience of fighting against enemies of similar nature in the past, and despite the fact that generals such as Kantakouzenos possessed a good knowledge of the fighting methods of the Turkomans. This article argues that the inability of the Byzantines to adjust to the demands of the battlefield tactics of the Turkoman warriors was a combination of many factors. The loss of Asia Minor deprived Byzantium of its main source of competent archers. The Byzantines relied on heavy cavalry which, although it proved ineffective against the Turkomans, was the symbol of exalted status of members of the aristocracy. Moreover, stereotyped views about the Turkomans affected the performance of the Byzantines on the battlefield. It seems that Byzantine generals, even if they knew the fighting methods of the Turkomans, very often could not fully understand the strength of their armies. This article concludes that the failure to react successfully to the battlefield tactics of the Turkomans could be partly described as a failure of cultural adaptation, reinforced by stereotypes about ‘barbarians.’. (shrink)

When Caesar sailed to Britain in 55 b.c. he was obliged to leave behind eighteen transports which had his cavalry on board and had been prevented by adverse winds from joining the rest of the fleet. These vessels, like those which carried the infantry, were of native Gallic build, and were doubtless sailed by Gallic seamen, who were familiar with the conditions of navigation in the Channel. On the fourth day after Caesar landed in Britain they set sail with (...) a light breeze. All went well until they were approaching the British coast and were descried from the Roman camp when, as Caesar says,‘such a violent storm suddenly arose that none of them could keep their course, but some were carried back to the point from which they had started, while the others were swept down in great peril to the lower and more westerly part of the island. They anchored notwithstanding, but as they were becoming waterlogged, were forced to stand out to sea in the face of night, and make for the continent.’. (shrink)