ταῦτα δὲ ὁρῶντες οὐ θαρρεῖτε.
It should be θαρρεῖν since dependent upon θαυμαστόν.
δοκεῖ γάρ μοι θαυμαστὸν εἶναι εἴ τις ὑμῶν ὅτι μὲν οἱ πολέμιοι συλλέγονται δέδοικεν, ὅτι δὲ ἡμεῖς πολὺ πλείους συνειλέγμεθα νῦν ἢ ὅτε ἐνικῶμεν ἐκείνους, πολὺ δὲ ἄμεινον σὺν θεοῖς παρεσκευάσμεθα νῦν ἢ πρόσθεν, ταῦτα δὲ ὁρῶντες οὐ θαρρεῖτε.
Yeah, it jogged me a bit coming to it. The finite verb makes it seem like a pure statement of fact, with the subject of the address changed to the οἱ νῦν δεδοικότες he is addressing in the next sentence. Notice that he drops the ἡμεῖς - παρεσκευάσμεθα to θαρρεῖτε. Maybe the last part, starting with πολύ should be its own sentence, making it all a statement? But I guess I’d expect something stronger than δέ…δέ to signal the subject shift.
I don’t see anything at all jarring here. Surely οὐ θαρρεῖτε still belongs to the εἰ clause following δοκεῖ γάρ μοι θαυμαστὸν εἶναι, so the syntax is perfecty regular: δοκεῖ γάρ μοι θαυμαστὸν εἶναι εἴ τις ὑμῶν δέδοικεν … ταῦτα δὲ ὁρῶντες οὐ θαρρεῖτε.
Just as a finite verb (δέδοικεν) is needed after the ὅτι μέν clause, so a finite verb (οὐ θαρρεῖτε) is needed after the extended ὅτι δέ clause; but both depend on the εἰ. The most notable thing here—not that it’s especially notable—is πολὺ δὲ ἄμεινον … rather than καὶ πολὺ ἄμεινον … in the continuation of the ὅτι δὲ clause, but this doesn’t affect the overall structure.
What can I say? I was jarred, and had to look back to the beginning of the sentence. That doesn’t happen so often to me anymore reading Xenophon, who’s generally pretty smooth going down.
My first thought, after that jar, was to parse the syntax exactly as you say [Edit: minus εἰ dependence.]. That’s how it’s punctuated. It’s just a bit funny is all. Notice that εἴ τις ὑμῶν, a possibility, becomes a fact, and also becomes all of them instead of some. Also, while you say “surely” here, imo the ὅτι clause could end at ἐκείνους and still make sense. The connectives point to this being connected though, as I said.
No. If the second οτι clause ended at εκεινους that would leave the sense incomplete, because it still needs a verb, the counterpart of δεδοικεν in the prior clause.
With θαυμαζω etc. there’s precious little difference between ει and ὡς. Similarly slight is the difference between τις υμων and the 2 pl. verb. There’s really nothing jarring or “a bit funny” about any of it.
People can make up their own minds on whether the subject shift is slight or not, or whether ει versus a (non-existent, look again) ως is similarly slight.
But I’ll take this up:
If the second οτι clause ended at εκεινους that would leave the sense incomplete, because it still needs a verb, the counterpart of δεδοικεν in the prior clause.
You are, I think, stuck on the idea as expressed in the continued version. There the fear is that “we will lose”. End it here though, with δέδοικεν serving for both branches:
δοκεῖ γάρ μοι θαυμαστὸν εἶναι εἴ τις ὑμῶν ὅτι μὲν οἱ πολέμιοι συλλέγονται δέδοικεν, ὅτι δὲ ἡμεῖς πολὺ πλείους συνειλέγμεθα νῦν ἢ ὅτε ἐνικῶμεν ἐκείνους.
And the fear is that the gathering is large and that the battle will be bigger (and more dangerous) than before.
Then Cyrus says how to look at it correctly: πολὺ δὲ ἄμεινον…παρεσκευάσμεθα νῦν ἢ πρόσθεν. And then is exasperated ταῦτα δὲ ὁρῶντες οὐ θαρρεῖτε. But, as I say, the contrast markers (δε δε) aren’t quite strong enough to read it that way.
I stand by what I’ve said.