Victor Hanson's 'Epameinondas, The Battle Of Leuktra'

In “Epameinondas, the Battle of Leuktra (371 B.C.), and the ‘Revolution’ in Greek Battle Tactics,” Victor Hanson argued that Epameinondas’s battle tactics at Leuktra were not revolutionary and thus his brief battle record reported by Herodotus was justified. Hanson broke down his argument into five parts. First, he considered Epameinondas’s innovations of considerable value. Second, he compared Leuktra and Mantineia for similarities. Third, he reviewed Xenophon’s version of the Theban battle plan. Fourth, he reviewed other historic accounts for their reliability. Finally, Hanson provided an explanation of the victory at Leuktra that required no revolutionary tactical maneuvers and followed the narrative of Xenophon.
One innovation attributed

Xenophon wrote about the number of ranks for both the Thebans, fifty deep, and the Spartans, twelve deep. He also wrote about the Thebans amassing on the left to attack the Spartans on the right and the role that cavalry played in the battle. Xenophon did not mention Epameinondas in the battle of Leuktra or any innovations of battle tactics that he employed nor did any other contemporary writers of the fourth century. Xenophon wrote about Epameinondas at Mantineia which implies that he found his abilities there worthy of writing about but not at Leuktra earlier. Xenophon knew military tactics and would have accounted for innovation at Leuktra. However, Epameinondas’s leadership was questionable. Xenophon credited as many as three other generals on the field of battle with victory. Plutarch also credited Pelopidas with success at Leuktra.
Hanson explained that Diodorus, Plutarch, and Pausanias were all biased sources. Diodorus followed Ephorus and lacked information. Plutarch included a narrative on Leuktra that followed Pelopidas and was derived from Kallisthenes. Pausanias used a lost account of Plutarch’s about Epameinondas indebted to Ephorus. The innovations were derived from Kallisthenes and Ephorus. These accounts sided with the Thebans and were not of a contemporary

Hanson also pointed out that Xenophon was a keen student of military strategy. Xenophon’s understanding of military strategy could explain his lack of need to enter this attack tactic into the documented record of Leuktra. However, the other sources that Hanson drew from supported a diagonal march. Hanson tried to limit the idea that the march was anything more than the necessity of battle than an actual tactic of battle. The only issue with thinking was that the Spartan king was on the Spartan right and that was the end goal for the Theban plan and so a diagonal march would have to be part of the battle plan from the