This book explores Xenophon's Anabasis as a work in its own right and as one that forms an integral part of the author's oeuvre. Drawing primarily on historiographical and literary perspectives, it examines the dynamics of Anabasis in relation to its treatment of leadership and apologia. A central argument is that these key Xenophontic elements are driven in an important way by the influence of Socrates. The extent of this influence gives rise to the book's subtitle, ‘A Socratic History’, which I explain as a narrative rooted in a historical event or period and in which the author embeds a reflection of the philosopher and his values.

The study is part of a burgeoning scholarly interest in Xenophon that has its origins in the 1960s with the contributions of Hartmut Erbse, ‘Xenophon's Anabasis’ (1966), William Henry, Greek Historical Writing (1966) and Hans Breitenbach (in Real-Encyclopädie, 1967). The seminal work of William Higgins, Xenophon the Athenian (1977), a decade later was a further important stimulus. Reflecting on the dramatic decline in Xenophon's reputation in modern times, Erbse identified the eminent nineteenth-century historian, Barthold Niebuhr, as instrumental in setting aside the high reputation he had enjoyed for most of the preceding two millennia. Already before the emergence of new, unfavourable comparable historical evidence (Hellenika Oxyrhynchos), Niebuhr took aim at Hellenika, descending into a rant about the degenerate character of its author. Paul Cartledge points as well to George Grote, a disciple of Niebuhr. In his multi-volume History of Greece Grote wrote:

The decline of the nineteenth century continued well into the twentieth. The discovery in the 1900s at Oxyrhynchos in Egypt of papyri covering the same field as Hellenika seriously undermined Xenophon's standing as a historian. Comparison revealed bias, omissions and inaccuracies. Meanwhile in the philosophy arena his capacity for thinking came under growing scrutiny.