The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

Post by agesilaos »

During these days when the army was busy foraging, he called together the wives of the soldiers and their children; to the wives he undertook to give a monthly ration, to the children he distributed a service bonus in proportion to the military records of their fathers. C B Welles
En ais d’hemerais he dynamis peri ton pronomen escholeito, synagogon tas gynaikas ton stratioton kai tous ex auton gegontas paidas tautais men synestesato kata mena didonai siton, tois de paisin epiphoras tagmatikas apeneime kata tous ton pateron syllogismous. XVII 94 iv
This phrase epiphoras tagmatikas is unique; its component parts however, are not. In Book XVII itself Diodoros uses ‘epiphoran’, the singular accusative case, five times (19 vi; 57 vi: 58 ii: 60 ii: 99 ii). Unfortunately, all these are translated as ‘attack’, ‘onset’ and such would not be suitable here so we have to go back to the literal meaning of the word which is ‘a bringing towards’.

‘Tagmatikas’ it is true is almost unique but it is clearly an adjectival form of ‘tagma’ which Diodoros uses four times in Book XVII (33 i: 57 ii: 80 iv: 88 v) all as a catch all word for a military unit, just as Arrian uses ‘taxis’.

‘A Battalion bringing towards’ is still nonsense, but in the context of a list of bribes the ‘bringing towards’ must mean something like a gift or payment and the qualification ‘tagmatikas’ must associate it with military units.

It is further qualified by the phrase ‘kata tous ton pateron syllogismous’ so it was computed according to their fathers’ deeds.

This last suggests Curtius’ description of the distribution of bonuses just before the proposed Gandarian campaign, i.e. the same juncture in the narrative.

…ceteris quoque pro portione aut gradus, quem in amicitia obtinebant, aut navatae operae honos habitus est. IX 1 vi
The rest of the men were also rewarded according to their degree of friendship with Alexander or the service they had rendered. (Yardley’s translation)

Here there is no mention of the wives and children and the ‘proportionate’ rewards are given to the common soldiery, but this event (which may be the occasion of the distribution of the famous ‘elephant medallions’) is reported at the correct juncture and does seem to conform to the second part of Diodoros’ statement.

We can gain some insight into what may be occurring by considering Justin XII 4 viii ff.
8 Igitur et alimenta pueris statuta et instrumenta armorum equorumque iuuenibus data, et patribus pro numero filiorum praemia statuta. 9 Si quorum patres occidissent, nihilo minus pupilli stipendia patrum trahebant,
Maintenance was provided for the boys, and arms and horses were given them when they grew up; and rewards were assigned to the fathers in proportion to the number of their children. If the fathers of any of them were killed, the orphans notwithstanding received their father’s pay; Rev John Selby Watson
Interestingly the ‘alimenta’ mentioned here can refer to an issue of rations, the ‘alimentum’ was the original corn-dole that the citizens of Rome received, although this cannot be pressed too far as by the mid-first Century AD it was frequently replaced by a monetary dole. The passage has many of the elements found in Diodoros, however; the (possible) corn element, the rewards based on the number of children (though this is only an implication of the Diodoros), and the receipt of monies based upon their fathers’ salary. Justin puts this earlier in his narrative though, just after the visit of Thalestris, which Curtius retails at VI 5 xxvff and Diodoros at 77 i. Now, the surrounding matter in all three sources is concerned with the Macedonians’ disapproval of Alexander’s adoption of Persian dress and mores (this is the very place where the Metz Epitome starts but it has none of the conciliation matter). This increases the chances that Trogus actually found the story in his source and that it is not a Roman graft as has been suggested. Diodoros 78 i says,

‘Many it is true, did reproach him for these things but he silenced them with gifts.’
Homos de pollon autoi mempsimoirounton toutois men tais doreais etherapeuen…

And Curtius VI vi 11

Alexander was aware that the chief of his friends and the troops were grossly offended, so he attempted to regain their favour with generous gifts.
Ille non ignarus, et principes amicorum et exercitum graviter offendi, gratiam liberalitate donisque reparare temptabat

So in fact all three are telling the same story but supplying or omitting different details.

What has all this to do with the translation of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’? Well, we can now suggest how Diodoros has arrived at his passage. It is important to remember that he is epitomising a much longer work and that his method for so doing was probably similar to that employed by Diogenes Laertius when compiling his ‘Lives of Eminent Philosophers’, which has been discussed by Jorgen Meier in a Hermes Einzelschrift ‘Diogenes Laertius and his Hellenistic Background’. Therein he discovers clues in the mistakes that Diogenes makes in his citations and attributions that his method was to read a source and make abbreviated notes on the ancient equivalents of cards, these then serve to jog the memory (but if you abbreviate Plato, Phrynichos and Pollio all as P clearly there is scope for error!).

Now, Diogenes was combining a greater number of sources than Diodoros but I believe the methodology would have been similar; the resume is made from the notes and not the actual source book.

Finally we can suggest how Diodoros’ account reads as it does. I believe that coming to his notes he found the promise of monthly rations for the wives AND children, that juxtaposed was a note referring to the bonuses noted by Curtius for the soldiers and he has conflated the two; prompted, in no small part by the memory of the gifts detailed by Justin but glossed in his own work.

There is every reason to think that ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’ may be Kleitarchos’ own coining (or whichever source), as he loved making up words and cannot even call a ‘mountain bee’ a ‘mountain bee’ so thredon the normal word becomes ANthredon in his hands, and thus a Pythonesque ‘unmountain bee’! ‘Epiphoras’, all seem agreed, refers to some sort of donative, the ‘tagmatikas’ qualifies it and makes it unit specific. We have met such bonuses before Diod. 64 vi, and 74 iii which parallel Curtius V 1 xlv and VI 2 xvii where the size of the payments is conditioned by the unit the soldier is part of.

Since the term should, in all probability, apply not to the children’s but to the soldiers’ bonus it cannot mean a ‘bursary’. Further, Diodoros uses the standard words for ‘training’, teaching’ etc and it is hard to believe that had he understood the phrase in this way he would not have used a compound of such a word ( eg.gymnasias polemikas at 2 iii or the paideia and didaxontas of 110 iii).

It is hard to render this concept elegantly so, whilst bearing in mind the implication about its assessment, Welles’ ‘Service Bonus’ is probably as neat as one can get.
:?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:Since the term should, in all probability, apply not to the children’s but to the soldiers’ bonus it cannot mean a ‘bursary’. Further, Diodoros uses the standard words for ‘training’, teaching’ etc and it is hard to believe that had he understood the phrase in this way he would not have used a compound of such a word ( eg.gymnasias polemikas at 2 iii or the paideia and didaxontas of 110 iii).

It is hard to render this concept elegantly so, whilst bearing in mind the implication about its assessment, Welles’ ‘Service Bonus’ is probably as neat as one can get.
:?
Nicely explained.

The entire preceding passage (17.93.4 - 94.3) provides the context for the "offer" from Alexander. It relates, in palm-card form, what Arrian puts into the mouth of Coenus on the Hyphasis. Clearly the men are in no way disposed to yet another campaign and, whilst they are away, Alexander offers the wives this "bonus". It might best be described as an heroically nude bribe.

As you've elucidated, the qualifiers are related to the soldier's unit / rank / record and do not relate to the children - in stark contrast to that at 110.3. If one reads the entire passage - including the preceding contextual material (16.93.4 - 94.5) - it is more than difficult not to see it for the gratuitous sweetener it is unless one is reading to a purpose.
Last edited by Paralus on Tue Jul 27, 2010 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

Post by agesilaos »

Thanks, but just because it is in a source doesn't mean we have to believe it. Alexander bribing his men seems to be something of a 'topos' in the Vulgate, but not one i intend trawling through for a while; Metz must be done and with all my computer problems and the recurrence of an old rugger injury (honest, it isn't gout) I have not got very far. All the 'topos' stuff said there are those elephant medallions, so some distribution certainly happened in India; though I fancy it was more of a celebration of the victory at the Hydaspes than a bribe to attack the Gandaridae, sugaring the bitter pill of retreat; but the fact is it could have worked either way, or any number of other ways, for that matter. Chaire :twisted:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

Post by agesilaos »

Thanks, but just because it is in a source doesn't mean we have to believe it. Alexander bribing his men seems to be something of a 'topos' in the Vulgate, but not one i intend trawling through for a while; Metz must be done and with all my computer problems and the recurrence of an old rugger injury (honest, it isn't gout) I have not got very far. All the 'topos' stuff said there are those elephant medallions, so some distribution certainly happened in India; though I fancy it was more of a celebration of the victory at the Hydaspes than a bribe to attack the Gandaridae, sugaring the bitter pill of retreat; but the fact is it could have worked either way, or any number of other ways, for that matter. Chaire :twisted:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:Thanks, but just because it is in a source doesn't mean we have to believe it.
Which is of course true. As one instance one might cite the claim of Aristobulos that Alexander "used to have long drinking parties, not for the purpose of enjoying the wine, as he was not a great wine-drinker, but in order to exhibit his sociality and friendly feeling to his Companions". Thus the same source does not relate the drunken revel that leads to the murder Cleitus. It is to be presumed that Cleitus might have strongly depricated such an apolgetic view.
agesilaos wrote: Alexander bribing his men seems to be something of a 'topos' in the Vulgate...


That is a possibility and, if it is true, then apologia and / or airbrushing is certainly one for the supposed "reliable" tradition. For example, the Vulgate relates the betrayal of the Indian mercenaries at Massaga in gruesome detail (Diod. 16.84.1-6) and in terms of moral comdemnation (Plut. Alex. 59.6-8). Arrian (4.261 - 27.4) prefers to relate that Alexander, having wished to "preserve the lives of brave men" had to kill them all because they reconsidered joining his army and were to make off undercover of darkness. Plutarch and Diodorus preserve a tradition in antiquity which relates this incident in a more base, if pragmatic, light and which, to borrow Badian's phrase, "Arrian's sources do not seem to have succeeded in making fully acceptable" (Alexander at Peucelaotis, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 (1987), pp. 117-128).

That such notations of bribery in the Vulgate constitute a topos is, though, an arguable proposition. It is a matter of presentation and motive by the sources. There are those who would hold that the notations of Alexander's "assemblies of the Makedones" - more frequent as the anabasis wore on - constitute hard evidence for the strict view of a constitutional Macedonian state (esp. Hammond and Rzepka). A far more practical view is that such were increasingly employed by Alexander as a device to persuade and cajole an increasingly disinterested and disaffected army into following the conqueror on to yet another bout of conquering; especially after the release of the League troops after the fall of the Persian capitals. Into such a picture the "topos" of bribery of the soldiery in the Vulgate fits neatly.

The possibility of a topos aside, the point is that rendering the passage in question as anything other than a sop to the troops (or, more importantly, their wives) is rather akin to special pleading in my view.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: The meaning of ‘epiphoras tagmatikas’

Post by Xenophon »

I would agree with all the above......that Alexander had increasing difficulty in persuading troops growing ever more wealthy, cynical and older and wiser to continue ever further from home is surely a given - hence the need to summon the 'Assembly of the Makedones' more frequently and more donatives and rewards to the troops - which of course had the unfortunate effect of makingit harder to 'motivate'/bribe the army next time. Ultimately of course, we inevitably reach a point where the different factors - be it negative in the form of climate, disease and death; or positive in the form of wealth, riches and slaves, where the Army/Makedones have simply had enough and are only interested in returning home ( or at least back to the Empire if they are content with their 'foreign' families) to enjoy their ill-gotten gains......
Post Reply