Why do some scholars classify Xenophon’s Cyropaedia as fiction?

Scholars often classify Xenophon’s Cyropaedia as fiction primarily because its narrative pace and texture differ significantly from standard Greek historiography. Furthermore, the account of Cyrus II provided in the work deviates flagrantly from other historical sources.1

Rather than serving as a traditional historical record, the story is subordinate to a didactic agenda focused on exploring leadership. Analysts suggest the work is better described as "fictive history," bearing a closer resemblance to Socratic literature than to the Greek novel. While Xenophon may have drawn upon existing versions of the Cyrus story, he utilized them to expose techniques of political and military leadership through both direct instruction and example. Ultimately, the work presents an idealized, yet complex, portrait of absolute autocracy that does not necessarily offer an unambiguous endorsement of the system.1