Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Discuss Philip's achievements and Macedonia pre-Alexander

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:The non sequitur was Xenophon's not yours, Para. In effect he said if your example was not congruent then no other example could exist and Diodoros must be taken chronologically, which is clearly an untenable chain of logic. Personally, I am not swayed by your defence that Antigonos could not promise what he did not hold, political horse-trading is as old as the hills, as are empty promises swallowed wholesale.
I had wondered but, as it was in the same sentence observing that my example was flawed, I decided - yes, on the basis of probability - that you meant me.

As to the horse-trading, yes this was very much par for the course for the period (and every other). There are innumerable attestations of the philoi of one or the other of the Successors changing sides. The example was set early - as in many other things - by Antigonus. Promises of commands, city governorships and, ultimately, satrapies were the coin. Many an officer who began with Perdiccas, Eumenes and others can be found, at some stage of their career, amongst the philoi of Antigonus. This success can only have come by honouring those promises made. A long and growing list of reneging on these promises would seriously undermine any of his efforts against his rivals' important philoi and seriously erode the trust and support he received from his own philoi (the oil of Diadoch rule). Indeed, both of Antigonus' nephews, Telesophorus and Polemaios, rebelled at perceived lack of honours or reward. One can only assume that Philotas (most likely he removed by Perdiccas), whom Antigonus sent to persuade Antigenes and Teutamus to remove Eumenes (Diod.18.62.4-6), was either not given (or promised) a satrapy for he delivered an offer tendering both these men "greater satrapies". He would, one thinks, be left to wonder just what he might or might not get!
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 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

This digression is getting all set to "run and run" as the journalistic saying has it, despite it being totally irrelevant, as I have pointed out previously to the matter at hand, namely the 'Philip' tomb.....it has taken on a life of its own, seemingly ! :?
Agesilaos wrote:
In effect he said if your example was not congruent then no other example could exist and Diodoros must be taken chronologically, which is clearly an untenable chain of logic.
Once again I am forced to protest that what you attribute to me is not what I said at all, which was...
Since Diodorus does not in fact anticipate events for Antigonus, and chronology is not suborned, then by your reasoning he is unlikely to be doing so for Kassandros....and it would appear there is ample time for the funerals to have taken place in the sequence Diodorus gives, and before news of Eumenes demise arrived. On balance of probability then, it would seem there is no reason to prefer Diyllus over Diodorus.
Where do I say "must" or "no other example could exist " ? That is a 'straw man' argument, setting up a distortion of my words so as to knock it down, an 'Aunt Sally' argument if you will....
I was not setting up a logic sequence of my own, but commenting on Paralus' reasoning, which in essence was that D. had telescoped events out of chronological sequence in respect of Antigonus and was therefore doing the same in respect of Kassandros. This of course does not necessarily follow in any event, but certainly didn't here because the foundation of his argument was not, in fact, correct. Diod. had not referred to events in respect of Antigonus out of chronological sequence, a point on which Agesilaos and I seemingly agree. Since Paralus' reasoning ( not mine) relied on the similarities between D.'s descriptions not being in chronological sequence in the case of both Antigonus and Kassandros, I was pointing out that if they were in correct sequence for Antigonus, then by Paralus' reasoning that what was true of one was true of the other ( which of itself is not strictly logical ), his case fell down.

For those 'Pothos' readers not familiar with legal Latin, I would explain that a 'non sequitur' (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a' non sequitur', the conclusion could be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion, as here where even if Paralus was correct in Diod. going out of chronological sequence regarding Antigonus, it does not necessarily follow that he does with regard to Kassandros.
Paralus was right that the reference to 'non sequitur' should have meant his ( Paralus) argument, for I did not offer up one of my own, contra Agesilaos ! :wink:

Paralus wrote:
These are separate points. The first refers to the more important philoi and here some of these receive the satrapies and commands at this synhedrion. The second relates back to the philoi in general - the "not so important" philoi and those of the "more important" philoi yet to receive a reward - who have great expectations dangled before them. Two distinct groups are the subject of each notice.
This is rather hair-splitting I think. Your original argument was that D. here refers to both the "promises" of 319/318 and actual appointments made in 316, hence conflating chronological sequence. Now it appears you agree that D. is referring solely to "this synhedrion", that of 319/318, but that two types of appointments were made. The first, actually saying to some "You are now Satrap of 'X' with effect from today." while making future promises to others; "when we win, you will be made a Satrap". Whether there were two different types of 'appointment' made in 319/318 hardly matters. Whatever was said, D. is talking about what was said at that time, not referencing what was later said in 316, and on this basis your assertion about D.'s comments on Antigonus fall down, as Agesilaos and I apparently agree.[ assuming I have interpreted what he is saying correctly! ]
On a purely practical point, Antigonus cannot have assigned satrapies to some of his philoi without those satrapies under his control.
Why not ? In cementing the loyalties of his 'philoi' why could not Antigonus have said in 319/318 words to the effect of "So far as I am concerned, you are now Satrap of "X", not that lick-spittle of Eumenes, and the sooner we go there and kick the bastard out, the sooner you take up your satrapy."....or similar ?
Of course, Antigonus might dispose of any who accepted such in favour of his philoi but that would not do the continued use of the gambit - used throughout his career - much good...
...again, why not? I agree with Agesilaos, that such "political horse-trading is as old as the hills, as are empty promises swallowed wholesale."....as now, apparently, do you. A series of 'renegging' might debase the value of this particular coin, but when it is the only coin around, those offered it would have no choice but to accept it despite their increasing lack of confidence in Antigonus' promises....

Anyhow, what was initiated as an irrelevant aside as to just when the funeral of Philip III Arrhidaeus, Eurydike and Cynna occurred ( when the point was that the three were buried together) has now assumed all the debate of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.

Let me see if I can summarise the positions. Paralus proposes that the funerals must have taken place in the Autumn, on the artificial basis that Diyllus, as referred to by Athenaios is to be preferred to Diodorus' clear sequence for events, in turn based on the incorrect grounds that D. mixes up chronological sequence regarding Antigonus. In addition, he chooses to place Olympias' trial/execution in mid March/early April - on what grounds he says not, other than to suggest 'beginning' of Spring means mid-March, and then argues that there wasn't time for Krateros to have the wedding, found the city, and conduct the funeral before "mid-to-late April, or even May" when we agree that news of Eumenes defeat likely occurred. But there was ample time of several weeks, even accepting Paralus' dating of Olympias' demise. Moreover, the hot potato of eliminating Olympias will have brooked little delay after she surrendered in perhaps as early as January/Feb - as always in such cases : "If 'twere done, 'twas best done quickly..." Hard to imagine him keeping her around for almost two months, especially as he made sure her victims got their revenge A.S.A.P after "trial." I am not sure of what significance Paralus puts on 52.6, for Cleitus merely foresees Antigonus' revolt, and takes ship to Macedonia to warn of it and enlist aid for himself. Antigonus then openly revolts by seizing the treasure at Ephesus.
Paralus seems to be using rationalisation - start with your conclusion - 'the funerals must have occurred at the end of the year' and then rationalise/reverse engineer the timings to preclude them occurring as Diodorus says they did.

Agesilaos' position seems to be that we can accept both, provided Diodorus sequence is illustrative rather than strictly sequential.
If one can accept both Diodoros' and Diyllos' statements, which one can by contextualising Diodoros' sentence as illustrative rather than narrative, then unless there is good reason to reject one of them one should accept both. If one chooses to reject Diyllos here one ought to suggest why he would falsify the chronology. I can see no reason, no advantage to misreporting when Philip III et al was buried, indeed doubting that casts doubt on all the information therein; if he was not returning from Boeotia was Kynna actually 'given funeral rites'? Diyllos was at Athens, presumably, so distance from events would not be a factor. The only hypothesis seems to be an error, which is an explanation of last resort.
I would agree that it need not be a 'one-or-the-other' situation. We don't actually have Diyllus' version, only Athenaios casually referring it out of context on the one hand, and Diodorus' clear sequence on the other, and he was quite possibly using Diyllus 'Universal History' as a source for his own. Given that, it may possibly be that Diodorus is the more accurate reporter of Diyllus as compared to Athenaios who wasn't even writing history and who may well be a trifle careless with the facts regarding anecdotes for a dinner symposion.

My position is that before or after are both possible, that we can't be entirely certain of fuzzy timings, but that Spring is certainly possible.Olympias' trial and execution after her surrender were likely to have been fairly prompt [why keep her around?], and that events probably occurred in the sequence Diodorus reported them( especially as Kassandros awaits reaction to Olympias' death) and that there was ample time for all this ( which needed no more than a few weeks at most) to occur before the arrival of the news of Eumenes defeat and death, possibly in mid-late April. For that matter there was more time after, for the Army would likely have set off at the end of May/beginning of June at the earliest, bearing in mind crop ripening.....
Therefore no need to hypothesise that Diodorus was "wrong" in quoting his sequence of events for Kassandros, which is perfectly possible and plausible, for all the reasons debated above.. and if I must choose between Spring or Autumn, I think Spring the more likely on weight of evidence.

It seems to me that throughout his universal history D. is at pains to report things in sequence, albeit turning from one region to another, and when events get slightly out of sequence, he says so as quoted above:
With the aid of Fortune he gained so great an increase in power that he took over the royal armies and championed the kings against those who had boldly tried to end their rule. But we shall relate these events in more detail a little later in their proper place.


We cannot, of course, be certain on the evidence we have, hence the reference to an "angels dancing on the head of a pin" type of debate....nor does it matter to the subject, to which we can now hopefully return.

P.S. : No need to go trawling for D. describing events out of sequence, given his style of reporting region by region, one might expect that he probably does from time to time, but just because he does on some occasions doesn't mean he does on THIS occasion (that is another form of flawed logic - a hasty generalisation, or false analogy, even a 'non sequitur ! :lol: .....the finding of such simply means it is possible for him to get his chronology wrong, but not necessarily probable, for here he is very firm as to the sequence of events he is reporting.....
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:This is rather hair-splitting I think. Your original argument was that D. here refers to both the "promises" of 319/318 and actual appointments made in 316, hence conflating chronological sequence. Now it appears you agree that D. is referring solely to "this synhedrion", that of 319/318, but that two types of appointments were made.
Well, no. In both earlier posts I've concluded that Diodorus anticipates the event to come.
Paralus wrote: Diodorus, in his illustration of Antigonus’ ambitions, anticipates an event yet to occur.
Paralus wrote:As such, I would say that 18.50 is a brief account of Antigonus' imperial ambitions which anticipates the assignation of satrapies some two years hence and places Antigonus' appointment as strategos autokrator of Asia after his dealings with Eumenes, Alcetas and Attalos.
The Loeb translation does, though, make the two distinct groups the subject of the two distinct notices. As I wrote, there is no evidence that Antigonus made anyone satrap at this synhedrion.
Xenophon wrote: I agree with Agesilaos, that such "political horse-trading is as old as the hills, as are empty promises swallowed wholesale."....as now, apparently, do you. A series of 'renegging' might debase the value of this particular coin, but when it is the only coin around, those offered it would have no choice but to accept it despite their increasing lack of confidence in Antigonus' promises....
Eumenes and Antigenes argued that Antigonus would not honour these promises; that is to be expected though. That he did honour similar such is, I'd argue, demonstrated by the former philoi of other Successors attested in his entourage.
Xenophon wrote: Paralus proposes that the funerals must have taken place in the Autumn, on the artificial basis that Diyllus, as referred to by Athenaios is to be preferred to Diodorus' clear sequence for events, in turn based on the incorrect grounds that D. mixes up chronological sequence regarding Antigonus.
I do not see that the basis needs to be described with the somewhat pejorative "artificial". Further, it is not based upon Diodorus' sequence regarding Antigonus. This, as I wote, might be comparable. The passage concerning Cassander is, itself, enough.
Xenophon wrote: In addition, he chooses to place Olympias' trial/execution in mid March/early April - on what grounds he says not, other than to suggest 'beginning' of Spring means mid-March,
I wouldn't suggest the beginning of spring was January/February! Diodorus is clear that siege lasted through winter with Cassander unable to assault Olympias' position due to winter storms. He then describes the situation in Pydna as "spring began (ἀρχομένου)". I'm not an ancient Macedonian and can only guess at just when such would consider spring beginning. I would guess that to be in March rather than January/February.
Xenophon wrote: But there was ample time of several weeks, even accepting Paralus' dating of Olympias' demise. Moreover, the hot potato of eliminating Olympias will have brooked little delay after she surrendered in perhaps as early as January/Feb - as always in such cases : "If 'twere done, 'twas best done quickly..." Hard to imagine him keeping her around for almost two months, especially as he made sure her victims got their revenge A.S.A.P after "trial."
Again, Olympias cannot have surrendered in January/ February as I indicated above. There was no keeping her around for two months. There was, though, the need for her to contact her supporters in Amphipolis and Pella to arrange surrenders and time for Cassander to organise and conduct his trial.
Xenophon wrote: I am not sure of what significance Paralus puts on 52.6, for Cleitus merely foresees Antigonus' revolt, and takes ship to Macedonia to warn of it and enlist aid for himself. Antigonus then openly revolts by seizing the treasure at Ephesus.
I confess to being at a total loss here. Perhaps you've looked at an incorrect passage? To clarify matters...
While Cassander was engaged with these matters, Polyperchon was being besieged in Azorius in Perrhaebia, but on hearing of the death of Olympias he finally, despairing of success in Macedonia, escaped from the city with a few followers. Leaving Thessaly and taking over the troops led by Aeacides, he withdrew into Aetolia, believing that he could wait there with greatest safety and observe the changes in the situation; for as it chanced he was on friendly terms with this people.
"These matters", with which Cassander was engaged, are those enumerated in the foregoing part of chapter 52: the wedding, the foundation, the imprisonment of Alexander IV and his mother, the funeral and associated games and the call up of the Macedonian army. These events, if Diodorus' sequencing of events "is perfectly possible and plausible", come after Olympias' trial and murder. Yet whilst Cassander is engaged in all these events after Olympias' murder, Polyperchon continues to resist a siege not having heard of her death?
Xenophon wrote:Paralus seems to be using rationalisation - start with your conclusion - 'the funerals must have occurred at the end of the year' and then rationalise/reverse engineer the timings to preclude them occurring as Diodorus says they did.
I reject that. I have not "reverse engineered" anything. I have preferred Dyillus' sequence for the funeral and argued why I see it that way. Again, whilst the marriage and the foundation signify royal aspirations, the burial of the previous king is the big play. Cassander staged funeral games along with it and these will have to have been organised - certainly not overnight - for those providing the "entertainment" to be available and present. This was Cassander's royal play and he is unlikey to have run it off in a bum's rush.

I shall now take myself off to do the very "Sydney" thing and watch the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (certainly can't watch the cricket). Perhaps that will stop me "diverting" threads...
Last edited by Paralus on Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:23 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 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by agesilaos »

Xenophon, you are quite new to this forum so I can assure you that if there is one thing upon which you can rely it is threads taking on a life of their own quite tangental to the stated subject; we have no discipline here :shock:

I have to say i did not read Paralus' comments as an argument rather as an example of a similar passage; I do agree that it is a flawed example, although I can see Paralus' point I am just not convinced and that is a matter of interpretation; I am reluctant to go back to the greek on this as I know neither of my interlocuters are able to comment on the language so I could lie with impunity! :twisted: Of course I would not, but Greek can leave much to the reader's interpretation, perhaps Hiphys can take a glance.

I therefore dispute Xenophon's reconstruction of the various lines of this debate, Paralus' because I don't think it was intended as a logical argument based on the two passages, my own because he has understated my position (not out of any malice, to be sure but to avoid any 'straw man' argument) which is that since there is no reason for Diyllos to have invented the detail of the Funerals occurring after a return from Boeotia, nor is it germane to Athenaios' exegesis, so there is no reason to reject this detail other than Diodoros' passage.

I do not think it likely that Diodoros is following Diyllos in Books XVIII - XX. Diyllos was an Athenian Historian and the focus of these books is Eumenid then Antigonid rather than Athenocentric, but let us entertain the possibility. Then we have to compare a summary, by Diodoros, which is accurate enough to miss two whole archon years, and a 'quote' or paraphrase which includes a detail for which there is no reason to suspect falsification; the degree of compression can only work one way, in favour of Athenaios.

There are many instances of Diodoros' anticipating events and then saying 'but we shall treat these further at the appropriate time' or words to that effect, but these are not parrallels of the Kassandros passage either, they are anticipatory hooks which ultimately cue repetition, and expansion they are hooks or teasers. This is not the case here, which is why I do have to trawl; it is not fatal if there are no similar cases but if it can be shown to be a part of Diodoros' method elsewhere it necessarily makes it more plausible that such is the case here.

Do re-read your post as if someone else had written it and then I think you will find the conclusion unsupported by the premises; it is an unfortunate artefact of writing replies that points of misunderstanding that could be instantly clarified face to face (and glass to glass, hic, haec hoc! Cheers) assume much greater and unintended importance. So let's not get seduced into deploying forms that work in verbal arguments; remember,' in writing no-one can hear your tone of voice' :D despite emoticons!
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

Oh dear, judging by this and Paralus' post, I seem to have ruffled a few feathers - which was the opposite of my intention ! I was attempting to draw together what can be agreed, and pointing out that we cannot draw any conclusions about the timing of the triple funeral, given that Diodorus and Diyllus seem to be at odds as to timing, and reconciliation of the accounts is difficult, unless we assume a 'mistake' as you refer to, though perhaps probability may favour one over another......but it would appear the three of us differ over that too!! :?
agesilaos wrote:Xenophon, you are quite new to this forum so I can assure you that if there is one thing upon which you can rely it is threads taking on a life of their own quite tangental to the stated subject; we have no discipline here :shock:
I may be relatively 'new' here, but in my experience pretty much all forum threads tend to digress this way....which isn't to say one can't attempt to drag a thread back to its subject, and for example, split off posts to a new thread "The timing of The triple funeral of Philip IIi Arrhidaeus, Eurydike and Cynna " or similar, duplicating posts where necessary... :wink:
I am reluctant to go back to the greek on this as I know neither of my interlocuters are able to comment on the language so I could lie with impunity! :twisted: Of course I would not, but Greek can leave much to the reader's interpretation, perhaps Hiphys can take a glance.
Even with my fragmentary Greek, I'm aware that it is not a terribly precise language, and much depends on interpretation, especially considering its meagre punctuation.....but there are ways and means of checking, certainly any whoppers... :lol:
... since there is no reason for Diyllos to have invented the detail of the Funerals occurring after a return from Boeotia, nor is it germane to Athenaios' exegesis, so there is no reason to reject this detail other than Diodoros' passage.
...and of course, the reverse corollary also applies - there is no reason to reject Diodorus' very plain sequence of events, other than Athenaeus' reference to Diyllus, which is not in a historical context in any event.
I do not think it likely that Diodoros is following Diyllos in Books XVIII - XX. Diyllos was an Athenian Historian and the focus of these books is Eumenid then Antigonid rather than Athenocentric, but let us entertain the possibility. Then we have to compare a summary, by Diodoros, which is accurate enough to miss two whole archon years, and a 'quote' or paraphrase which includes a detail for which there is no reason to suspect falsification; the degree of compression can only work one way, in favour of Athenaios.
For different reasons, I think differently - see above. As I said earlier, "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice". It appears we must look elsewhere if we are to favour one over the other.

On reflection, I am persuaded by your reasoning regarding Diodorus not using Diyllus as a source here - Diodorus mentions him twice in Book XVI for example, but not here, so Diodorus is likely using a different source, in which case we need not try to reconcile the two by postulating a 'mistake' etc by either Athenaeus or Diodorus - they are likely working from different sources who offer up different timings.
There are many instances of Diodoros' anticipating events and then saying 'but we shall treat these further at the appropriate time' or words to that effect, but these are not parrallels of the Kassandros passage either, they are anticipatory hooks which ultimately cue repetition, and expansion they are hooks or teasers. This is not the case here, which is why I do have to trawl; it is not fatal if there are no similar cases but if it can be shown to be a part of Diodoros' method elsewhere it necessarily makes it more plausible that such is the case here
.

Possibly, but no ancient author uses but one or even a few methods, especially since they can vary depending on which source THEY are relying on at the passage in question, hence my doubts that this type of 'quellenforschung' will produce anything conclusive...
Do re-read your post as if someone else had written it and then I think you will find the conclusion unsupported by the premises; it is an unfortunate artefact of writing replies that points of misunderstanding that could be instantly clarified face to face (and glass to glass, hic, haec hoc! Cheers) assume much greater and unintended importance. So let's not get seduced into deploying forms that work in verbal arguments; remember,' in writing no-one can hear your tone of voice' :D despite emoticons!
Huh? I didn't point to any conclusion in respect of whether Diyllus or Diodorus is 'right' regarding the timing of the funerals, which is irrelevant to the point of the 'triple funeral' under discussion at the time of the digression .I did say that if forced to choose, on the balance of the evidence as I interpret it, a funeral in Spring rather than Autumn/Winter seems to me more likely, and there are a few more extrinsic reasons that might weigh the scale in this direction, which I'll address in a separate post.

As to forms that work in verbal arguments, I assume you are referring to my use of formal logic points, but I was simply using the coin introduced by your good self by use of the term 'non sequitur', and no offence intended....and I certainly recall with fondness debates in pubs while drinking pints of delicious Bitter, such as Hampshire 'Gales Ales'....much more satisfying and laughter filled than dry written forum discussions - and as you say even the invention of emoticons still limits the mode of communication, prone as it is to misunderstandings....
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Paralus »

So as not to be represented as being "totally irrelevant to the matter at hand" I might open this with the observation that, though not much more could be written on the matter, I am leaning toward the disputed tomb being that of Philip II. Of interest here are the "sarisa" butts found outside of the tomb (if I recall correctly). From memory Andronikos conjectured that the robbers of the tombs left these here. It is most interesting that these same "butt spikes" were excavated "driven vertically into the ground" immediately out front of the Macedonian tomb at Phoinika (dated late 4th century). The sarsisae were obviously left as some form of memorial just as sarisa-armed men guard the tomb of Aghios Athenaisios.
Xenophon wrote:
There are many instances of Diodoros' anticipating events and then saying 'but we shall treat these further at the appropriate time' or words to that effect, but these are not parrallels of the Kassandros passage either, they are anticipatory hooks which ultimately cue repetition, and expansion they are hooks or teasers. This is not the case here, which is why I do have to trawl; it is not fatal if there are no similar cases but if it can be shown to be a part of Diodoros' method elsewhere it necessarily makes it more plausible that such is the case here
.

Possibly, but no ancient author uses but one or even a few methods, especially since they can vary depending on which source THEY are relying on at the passage in question, hence my doubts that this type of 'quellenforschung' will produce anything conclusive...
You confuse quellenforschung with style. The two are entirely separate and Diodorus has a very particular style.
agesilaos wrote:I have to say i did not read Paralus' comments as an argument rather as an example of a similar passage; I do agree that it is a flawed example, although I can see Paralus' point I am just not convinced and that is a matter of interpretation; I am reluctant to go back to the greek on this as I know neither of my interlocuters are able to comment on the language so I could lie with impunity!
I would very much doubt that latter. And, given my (in)expertise, I would dare not argue the ancient Greek with you and, so, the tense (amongst other aspects) of the Antigonus passage is open to interpretation (there being no "punctuation" in the modern sense in these ancient texts). As I said it "might" be compared to. This was more to do with style and composition. As I've attempted to point out " 'but we shall treat these further at the appropriate time' or words to that effect" are, to my mind, Diodorus' own words where he anticipates events. Contrary to those who consider him a very poor epitomator, my view is that he clearly anticipated events in his sources and, whilst he didn't always fulfil the 'promise', he had read them enough to so anticipate. An excursus, such as we are dealing with here, has no such Diodoran phraseology. This is not a Diodoran "I'll deal with this another book..." As such I would state that these little character "summaries" are found in his source(s). It might be noted that Diodorus provides a neat little encomium of Ptolemy at 18.28. Here he tells us that, apart from everyone coming to Egypt to fight alongside Ptolemy against Perdiccas, "the gods also saved him unexpectedly from the greatest dangers on account of his courage and his honest treatment of all his friends". This, of course, refers to Perdiccas' failed campaign and, more so, that of Antigonus in 306.

agesilaos wrote:I do not think it likely that Diodoros is following Diyllos in Books XVIII - XX. Diyllos was an Athenian Historian and the focus of these books is Eumenid then Antigonid rather than Athenocentric …
Xenophon wrote:On reflection, I am persuaded by your reasoning regarding Diodorus not using Diyllus as a source here - Diodorus mentions him twice in Book XVI for example, but not here, so Diodorus is likely using a different source, in which case we need not try to reconcile the two by postulating a 'mistake' etc by either Athenaeus or Diodorus - they are likely working from different sources who offer up different timings.
That presumes that Diodorus’ noting of a writer (within a book) necessitates his use of that writer as a source. This is wrong. Diodorus, as with many other ancient writers, is notorious for his lack of ‘attribution’. There is only one book in which Diodorus explicitly cites his sources (III: 11.2; 52.3; 66.5). Outside of this we are abandoned to the vagaries quellenforschung.There seems no "Boxing Day" rush to claim Diodorus used Marsayas for any part of book 20 (Diod, 20.50.4), for example.

As to the sources each are working from, Athenaus at least names his and it is a contemporary. Diodorus cites absolutely none. As much as the “Hieronymus industry” would like it so, there is no hard evidence that Hieronymus is the direct source of Diodorus 18-20. There is, in fact, evidence that he was not as the many anti-Antigonid and pro-Ptolemaic passages indicate. Lane Fox’s assertion (at Sydney 2013) that Hieronymus wrote these passages under Ptolemy after being captured after Ipsos is nothing more than that: a flat assertion and terribly unbelievable. There is absolutely nothing to support such – even given the poor state of our sources – and it is simply another of the crutches deployed to defend the “Hieronymus” paradigm.

Whilst I accept Xenophon's notion that "If 'twere done, 'twas best done quickly..." for Olympias, there were other exigencies that demanded Cassander's attention. Diodorus makes it plain that Cassander was worried about the murder of Olympias. As well he might be: this is the mother of Alexander. He is so concerned that he has deserters from Olympias' camp sent to "the cities" of Macedon to spread the news she is near capitulation. Cassander is rightly concerned about the reach of the old Funnel-Web of a matriarch. Once he'd finally got her surrender, he had to send Olympias' letters to the strongholds so as to have them surrendered. Notions that he set up the "trial" in no time flat are severely misplaced. It is plain that Cassander had to "load" this assembly by having the relatives (of Olympias' victims) turn up in mourning garb. The subsequent murder also presented problems for the Macedonians and, so, the relatives are sent.

Again, the problem for Cassander is presentation: how does he present all of this as something other than the usurpation that it is to the - clearly - fractious Macedonians (for this is exactly as Antigonus presents it in his "manifesto" at Tyre)? The logical thing is not to proceed precipitously - particularly with the burial of the former king. Yet this is exactly what you'd have him do: murder the mother of Alexander, marry his half sister, imprison the heir, bury the former king all whilst founding a city. The Macedonians - fractious as Diodorus clearly paints - accepted all of this happening within weeks of the fall of Pydna (whilst Polyperchon continued to resist not knowing of Olympias' surrender and murder)?

I prefer Dyillus' sequence: it is, as Spock would say, '"logical".
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
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Paralus »

Forgot this yesterday.
Xenophon wrote: ...and of course, the reverse corollary also applies - there is no reason to reject Diodorus' very plain sequence of events, other than Athenaeus' reference to Diyllus, which is not in a historical context in any event.
Which would amount to a license to dismiss Dyillus (via Athenaeus) any time he disagreed with Diodorus or any other historian. Plutarch (Mor. 862b) considered Dyillus "not one of the most contemptible as an historian".

Xenophon wrote:
I do not think it likely that Diodoros is following Diyllos in Books XVIII - XX. Diyllos was an Athenian Historian and the focus of these books is Eumenid then Antigonid rather than Athenocentric, but let us entertain the possibility. Then we have to compare a summary, by Diodoros, which is accurate enough to miss two whole archon years, and a 'quote' or paraphrase which includes a detail for which there is no reason to suspect falsification; the degree of compression can only work one way, in favour of Athenaios.
For different reasons, I think differently - see above. As I said earlier, "yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice". It appears we must look elsewhere if we are to favour one over the other..
It needs be borne in mind that Hieronymus - who is portrayed as having an Antigonid/Eumenid focus, dealing only with other events as they concern these main players - clearly reported on Roman affairs via the campaign of Pyrrhus. Nothing supposes he did not report on matters dealing with Athens and Cassander's wider doings in Greece.

Whilst on Diodorus' "plain sequence of events", it should be noted that there is no archon noted for the current year (after winter 317/16 for Europe). Diodorus' last archon insertion was Democleides (316/15) at 17.1. Thus, if Diodorus' chronology is correct, the events he narrates from 19.35.1 (Cassander in the Peloponnese besieging Tegea, breaking off and heading to Macedonia; the siege of Pydna, et al) all belong to 316/15.
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 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

Blimey, Paralus ! I answered Agesilaos' post first, and then pondered the complex reasoning you raise before responding to your long post. Before I can set fingers to keyboard, you have again posted at length !!

Slow down, dear fellow, and allow me time to catch up....... :wink:

Paralus wrote:
Well, no. In both earlier posts I've concluded that Diodorus anticipates the event to come....The Loeb translation does, though, make the two distinct groups the subject of the two distinct notices. As I wrote, there is no evidence that Antigonus made anyone satrap at this synhedrion.
Except that D. specifically says so
Diod. XVIII.50.5 again, describing Antogonus' doings of 319/318, and there's no 'anticipation' or 'conflation' of what he will do in 316, merely a record of A.'s acts and intentions as at 319/318:
...Antigonus also at once called a council of his friends and, after he had made them acquainted with his design for gaining imperial power, assigned satrapies to some of the more important friends and military commands to others; and by holding up great expectations to all of them, he filled them with enthusiasm for his undertakings. Indeed he had in mind to go through Asia, remove the existing satraps, and reorganize the positions of command in favour of his friends.
I think the meaning is clear enough. Where is there any reference to what actually happened in 316 ?
Eumenes and Antigenes argued that Antigonus would not honour these promises; that is to be expected though. That he did honour similar such is, I'd argue, demonstrated by the former philoi of other Successors attested in his entourage.
That, I think, is only partially true. For example after Eumenes death, his followers needed a new paymaster, and where were his followers to go, other than on to Antigonus' payroll ? A case in point being Hieronymous, wounded at Gabiene. He didn't receive any particularly important post. There will have been many reasons bringing former 'philoi' into Antigonus' fold.....
I do not see that the basis needs to be described with the somewhat pejorative "artificial". Further, it is not based upon Diodorus' sequence regarding Antigonus. This, as I wote, might be comparable. The passage concerning Cassander is, itself, enough.
Not 'pejorative' - artificial in the sense of constructed. And I take your point that you did say 'might'. So now we can leave the digression on the digression ? :lol: We need solely concern ourselves with the passage concerning Cassander ? That presumably means you are falling back on your position that the Spring was an insufficient period of time to accomplish what Diodorus relates. As I said earlier the time each event may have taken is distinctly 'fuzzy', not to mention some of them overlapping. More anon on extrinsic reasons for preferring Spring to Autumn/Winter.
I wouldn't suggest the beginning of spring was January/February! Diodorus is clear that siege lasted through winter with Cassander unable to assault Olympias' position due to winter storms. He then describes the situation in Pydna as "spring began (ἀρχομένου)". I'm not an ancient Macedonian and can only guess at just when such would consider spring beginning. I would guess that to be in March rather than January/February.
...and guess here is the operative word, for that is all any of us can do here. This is one of the 'fuzzy' timings I was referring to. I don't believe Diodorus, or his source, is referencing the calendar to define Spring. Olympias' troops beg her to be allowed to surrender - they are weak and starving, and in no condition to fight. Now it was a well-known "Custom of War" that no terms were possible "once the ram touched the wall." Olympias' troops will have wanted to surrender before any snow finished melting, allowing the bringing up of siege machinery. By the end of January in Macedonia, the average temperature is already above 10 celsius, and any snow gone[Mud would not be a problem in dry Macedonia- in Jan/Feb there are on average fewer than 6 rainy days per month]. The surrender must have taken place before the snow melted - which would be described "as Spring began". Sometime in March would seem very tardy indeed, for the besiegers will have been active long before this. However, we need not quibble the point, for as I said, even using mid-March, there is ample time for Diodorus' sequence of events as he describes them - I'll set my reasoning out in a separate post.
There was, though, the need for her to contact her supporters in Amphipolis and Pella to arrange surrenders and time for Cassander to organise and conduct his trial.
The furthest away is Amphipolis, about 85 miles by coast road, or 150 nautical miles by sea ( because of the Athos peninsula etc). Mounted messengers could cover up to 100 miles per day,[amended from 200 miles, see subsequent posts] so there in a day is feasible, or your namesake vessel could also have covered the distance in a day - under oar alone, faster by sail. The arrangements for trial will have been made concurrently - so clearly all in less than a week.
I confess to being at a total loss here. Perhaps you've looked at an incorrect passage? To clarify matters...
No, the passage in my Loeb XVIII.52.6 is as I said - and tallies with that of the Lacus Curtius version also....wait, perhaps you mean Book XIX ? AA..hh.h, yes, now I'm on the same page ! Since Polyperchon was under siege in Thessaly, he was presumably cut off from communication. Nevertheless he manages to find out about Olympias' death somehow, and departs for Aetolia before Cassander is ready to march out on campaign...no chronological sequence problems that I can see, especially as he would have had to plan his escape - he could hardly just leave immmediately.[ XIX.52.6. "he....finally escaped from the city with a few followers,"] The next chronological event is Cassander departing for the Peloponnese, likely in late spring early summer....
Again, whilst the marriage and the foundation signify royal aspirations, the burial of the previous king is the big play. Cassander staged funeral games along with it and these will have to have been organised - certainly not overnight - for those providing the "entertainment" to be available and present. This was Cassander's royal play and he is unlikely to have run it off in a bum's rush.
I'm not at all sure the funeral was of any more significance than a "Royal Wedding" or founding a city in your own name. ( BTW whilst it could simply have been done by decree, If Cassander wanted to lay the foundation stones personally, it was only a few days there and back). All were Royal prerogatives. If Diyllus is to be believed, the "funeral games" consisted of two duels - no mention of chariot races, foot races, javelin throwing etc Even if he left these out, from the Iliad onwards, funeral games all take place on a single day - the day of the funeral- generally. It was not the events themselves that took up time - a few days each at most - but rather the gathering in of the country's 'Good and Great' to attend.

I'll set out possible timetables once I've caught you up !! :) :D :lol:

How did you enjoy the rather soggy Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras ? Allowing Defence Force personnel to march in uniform is in marked contrast to the U.S defence force's only recently given up "Don't ask, don't tell" policy....

P.S : Whilst I've been penning this and plotting voyages for the Macedonian equivalent of the 'Paralus' you've posted AGAIN !! WHOAH !
Last edited by Xenophon on Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

Meanwhile, back on the main subject I have just come across some more relevant news about tomb occupants, In the Brill "Companion to Ancient Macedon" Robin Lane Fox prints his essay on the subject ( referred to in Musgrave's 2010 paper quoted ante by me). The uncremated male remains in tomb I are aged 25-30, are almost intact, and were found over a metre above floor level, implying they might well be those of a tomb-robber, also implied by the fact that the few remaining atrifacts are female-associated. He thoroughly demolishes the 'evidence' adduced by Philip III supporters. R lane Fox's essay can be read on-line here, for those curious but not wishing to purchase an expensive volume.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=kjL ... na&f=false

Incidently, on one point he is wrong. He says that the iron helmet could not have been Alexander's, for it had a soft horsehair crest and feather tube holders, and the tomb helmet had neither. Not quite. Certainly no feather tube holders, but the tell-tale rings for tying on the horsehair crest are discernible....
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

May Zeus and all the Gods of Olympus allow me to answer Paralus' last-but-one post before he posts again... :lol: :lol:

Paralus wrote:
Of interest here are the "sarisa" butts found outside of the tomb (if I recall correctly). From memory Andronikos conjectured that the robbers of the tombs left these here. It is most interesting that these same "butt spikes" were excavated "driven vertically into the ground" immediately out front of the Macedonian tomb at Phoinika (dated late 4th century). The sarsisae were obviously left as some form of memorial just as sarisa-armed men guard the tomb of Aghios Athenaisios.

Alas, not quite correct. The infamous 'sarissa parts' ( butt, butt from xyston, spearheads and mysterious tube) were found outside ( presumably dropped by a robber) one of the lesser, smaller non-Royal tumuli tombs in Vergina by Andronikos in 1970, well before the Royal tomb finds - but I notice that since then, many incorrectly attribute them to the 'Philip' tomb, or sometimes tomb III, the Prince's tomb. Connolly was one such, but later corrected himself.One of these incorrect attributions is what you have come across...


Paralus wrote:
You confuse quellenforschung with style. The two are entirely separate and Diodorus has a very particular style.
I think not. Several commentators have referred to D.'s multiple 'styles' depending on his source, although we may say that these are overlaid with D's "imprimatur"....such as the "we'll get to this in due course" type remarks, as you say.
That presumes that Diodorus’ noting of a writer (within a book) necessitates his use of that writer as a source. This is wrong. Diodorus, as with many other ancient writers, is notorious for his lack of ‘attribution’. There is only one book in which Diodorus explicitly cites his sources (III: 11.2; 52.3; 66.5). Outside of this we are abandoned to the vagaries quellenforschung.There seems no "Boxing Day" rush to claim Diodorus used Marsayas for any part of book 20 (Diod, 20.50.4), for example.
He may not cite Diyllus directly, but these passages, for example, surely infer it, as at XVI. 14. 5 and 76. 6, and XXI. 5),
Notions that he set up the "trial" in no time flat are severely misplaced. It is plain that Cassander had to "load" this assembly by having the relatives (of Olympias' victims) turn up in mourning garb. The subsequent murder also presented problems for the Macedonians and, so, the relatives are sent.
see above, all this could have happened, surrender to execution, within a week or so - perhaps two to be generous. Even using Paralus' mid-March as the 'beginning of Spring' [which I think too late on weather grounds: see above.] that means the end of March. Plenty of time between then and the end of May at the earliest for a wedding and a funeral before setting off on campaign, and for Polyperchon to plot, and effect his escape from being besieged. As I have said, there are extrinsic reasons for preferring Spring over Autumn/Winter for weddings and funerals. I have to check a couple of things and will post a proposed timeline shortly.......
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

Poor Agesilaos will have w..a..y too much reading ( and anyone else grimly hanging on to reading this thread )! They'll think Paralus and I have been infected by 'keyboard diarrhoea ! :lol: :lol:

Paralus wrote:
Which would amount to a license to dismiss Dyillus (via Athenaeus) any time he disagreed with Diodorus or any other historian. Plutarch (Mor. 862b) considered Dyillus "not one of the most contemptible as an historian".
I disagree, there is no conclusive evidence as to who is correct about the timings, so to suppose that both corollaries are possible is correct. I referred to Plutarch's opinion of Diyllus earlier in the thread...w..a....y back.
Whilst on Diodorus' "plain sequence of events", it should be noted that there is no archon noted for the current year (after winter 317/16 for Europe). Diodorus' last archon insertion was Democleides (316/15) at 17.1. Thus, if Diodorus' chronology is correct, the events he narrates from 19.35.1 (Cassander in the Peloponnese besieging Tegea, breaking off and heading to Macedonia; the siege of Pydna, et al) all belong to 316/15.
Uh, uh, uh..h.hh. No red herrings or digressions on Diodorus' chronology and occasionally missing archons or consuls, or how they differ from the 'Fasti' or 'Livy' etc if you please.That subject has been flogged to death elsewhere. Leave it for another day, if you must. Let us for now focus on THIS digression...... :wink:
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by agesilaos »

Xenphon wrote
He may not cite Diyllus directly, but these passages, for example, surely infer it, as at XVI. 14. 5 and 76. 6, and XXI. 5),
XVI 14
3 Among historians Demophilus, the son of the chronicler Ephorus, who treated in his work the history of what is known as the Sacred War, which had been passed over by his father, began his account with the capture of the shrine at Delphi and the pillaging of the oracle by Philomelus the Phocian. This war lasted eleven years until the annihilation of those who had divided amongst themselves the sacred property. 4 And Callisthenes wrote the history of the events in the Hellenic world in ten books and closed with the capture of the shrine and the impious act of Philomelus the Phocian. 5 Diyllus the Athenian began his history with the pillaging of the shrine and wrote twenty-six books, in which he included all the events which occurred in this period both in Greece and in Sicily.

XVI 76
5 Ephorus of Cymê, the historian, closed his history at this point with the siege of Perinthus, having included in his work the deeds of both the Greeks and the barbarians from the time of the return of the Heracleidae. He covered a period of almost seven hundred and fifty years, writing thirty books and prefacing each with an introduction. 6 Diyllus the Athenian began the second section of his history with the close of Ephorus's and made a connected narrative of the history of Greeks and barbarians from that point to the death of Philip.
XXI 5
1 Diyllus, the Athenian historian, compiled a universal history in twenty-six books and Psaon of Plataea wrote a continuation of this work in thirty books.
What we can take from these notices is that Diodoros knew the limits of Diyllos' work and its scope; it does not immediately follow that he used him as a source. Indeed, it would seem that he did not include Asia in his work. XVI 14 v restricts his geographical scope to Greece and Sicily, which would make the phrase at 76 vi 'made a connected narrative of the history of Greeks and barbarians from that point to the death of Philip.' can only refer to the Karthaginians.

It would seem possible for Diyllos to have been used for the period after the end of Ephoros' work but at the beginning of book XVI he declares his intention to make a unity of the Book based on the career of Philip. At XVI 3 I, we have
Among the writers of history Theopompus of Chios began his history of Philip at this point and composed fifty-eight books, of which five are lost.
And there is reason to think that it was this author he chooses to follow, there is much on the Persian attack on Egypt (and we know that Theopompos had treated Egypt, making a nonsense of the source of the Nile Diod.I 37
2 For on the general subject of the rise of the Nile and in this sources, as well as on the manner in which it reaches the sea and the other points in which this, the largest river of the inhabited world, differs from all others, some historians have actually not ventured to say a single word, although wont now and then to expatiate at length on some winter torrent or other, while others have undertaken to speak on these points of inquiry, but have strayed far from the truth. 3 Hellanicus and Cadmus, for instance, as well as Hecataeus and all the writers like them, belonging as they do one and all to the early school, turned to the answers offered by the myths; 4 Herodotus, who was a curious inquirer if ever a man was, and widely acquainted with history, undertook, it is true, to give an explanation of the matter, but is now found to have followed contradictory guesses; Xenophon and Thucydides, who are praised for the accuracy of their histories, completely refrained in their writings from any mention of the regions about Egypt; and Ephorus and Theopompus, who of all writers paid most attention to these matters, hit upon the truth the least. The error on the part of all these writers was due, not to their negligence, but to the peculiar character of the country. 5 For from earliest times until Ptolemy who was called Philadelphus, not only did no Greeks ever cross over into Ethiopia, but none ascended even as far as the boundaries of Egypt — to such an extent were all these regions inhospitable to foreigners and altogether dangerous; but after this king had made an expedition into Ethiopia with an army of Greeks, being the first to do so, the facts about that country from that time forth have been more accurately learned.
Diyllos would not seem to have treated these matters and there is little evidence he was used for Sicilian affairs where it is Ephoros and Timaios who are generally contrasted. This does not exclude his influence as a background colour (as Theopompos' own Sicilian books may have been), but it is unlikely such would be quoted.

XVI 71
Theopompus of Chios, the historian, in his History of Philip, included three books dealing with affairs in Sicily. Beginning with the tyranny of Dionysius the Elder he covered a period of fifty years, closing with the expulsion of the younger Dionysius. These three books are XLI‑XLIII.


Further this sort of note on the scope of works occurs earlier at XIV 84 vi, for instance
At this time Aëropus, the king of the Macedonians, died of illness after a reign of six years, and was succeeded in the sovereignty by his son Pausanias, who ruled for one year. 7 Theopompus of Chios ended with this year and the battle of Cnidus his Hellenistic History, which he wrote in Thrasybulus books. This historian began with the battle of Cynossema, with which Thucydides ended his work, and covered in his account a period of sevent
een years.

Yet the main source for this period is generally thought to be Ephoros, although at XV 47 viii
While these things were going on, in Cyprus Nicocles the eunuch assassinated the king Evagoras and possessed himself of the royal power over the Salaminians
Theopompus (fr. 111) says that Evagoras and his son Pnytagoras were murdered by a eunuch Thrasydaeus. Nicocles, the son and successor of Evagoras, probably had no hand in the murder. See also Aristotle, Politics, 5.1311B; Isocrates, Ad Nicoclem (II), Nicocles (III), and Evagoras, 72. Diodorus has abbreviated his source overmuch and made Nicocles the eunuch.
Kleitarchos was used for Book XVII and the amount of Asian material would make Diyllos unlikely to be a major source for XVIII-XX.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Paralus »

Already accused of "reverse engineering" evidence to suit a preconceived position, let's see if we can't make things a little simpler.
Xenophon wrote:Paralus wrote:
Well, no. In both earlier posts I've concluded that Diodorus anticipates the event to come....The Loeb translation does, though, make the two distinct groups the subject of the two distinct notices. As I wrote, there is no evidence that Antigonus made anyone satrap at this synhedrion.
Except that D. specifically says so
Diod. XVIII.50.5 again, describing Antogonus' doings of 319/318, and there's no 'anticipation' or 'conflation' of what he will do in 316, merely a record of A.'s acts and intentions as at 319/318:
...Antigonus also at once called a council of his friends and, after he had made them acquainted with his design for gaining imperial power, assigned satrapies to some of the more important friends and military commands to others; and by holding up great expectations to all of them, he filled them with enthusiasm for his undertakings. Indeed he had in mind to go through Asia, remove the existing satraps, and reorganize the positions of command in favour of his friends.
I think the meaning is clear enough. Where is there any reference to what actually happened in 316 ?
Diodorus says that in 319/18 Antigonus "assigned satrapies to some of the more important friends". As I've been at pains to point out, there is no evidence that any of the satraps of winter 319/18 were replaced by any of Antigonus' friends. At this time the only 'vacant' satrapy is Laomedon's (occupied by Ptolemy). In the following campaigning year we see the defeat of Arrhidaeus in Hellespontine Phygia but nothing attests to any replacement satrap (though, as I say, if Billows identification is correct, he is one of those philoi who take service under the One Eye). Diodorus states that Antigonus told his philoi that he planned "go through Asia, remove the existing satraps, and reorganize the positions of command in favour of his friends". This he indeed did do - but not until 317/16 at which time (316) he rearranged those satrapies he could as well as "positions of power" (the "strategos of the upper satrapies" for example). Diodorus knew this and, here, he (or his source) anticipates.
Xenophon wrote:
I confess to being at a total loss here. Perhaps you've looked at an incorrect passage? To clarify matters...
No, the passage in my Loeb XVIII.52.6 is as I said - and tallies with that of the Lacus Curtius version also....wait, perhaps you mean Book XIX ? AA..hh.h, yes, now I'm on the same page ! Since Polyperchon was under siege in Thessaly, he was presumably cut off from communication. Nevertheless he manages to find out about Olympias' death somehow, and departs for Aetolia before Cassander is ready to march out on campaign...no chronological sequence problems that I can see, especially as he would have had to plan his escape - he could hardly just leave immmediately.[ XIX.52.6. "he....finally escaped from the city with a few followers,"] The next chronological event is Cassander departing for the Peloponnese, likely in late spring early summer....
I would note that Cassander took much care in having those soldiers of Olympias who surrendered "tour" Macedonia to spread the news of the impossible position of Olympias to the Macedonians so "they would despair of her cause" and come over to him. On the surrender he has Olympias write to order her generals to surrender. In all of this you would maintain that Cassander deliberately left her most important supporter - Polyperchon (whom Aristonous thought would help him if not Eumenes) - ignorant of both her plight and subsequent surrender? I think not. Far more likely is that Cassander will have wasted no time in letting those Macedonians with Polyperchon (and the rest of the supporters of the besieged regent) know of both the surrender and the murder.

And, again, if Diodorus is to be taken at his 'chronological word', "while Cassander was engaged with these matters" (that is, the marriage, the foundation, the imprisonments and the funerals all after having tried and killed Olympias) Polyperchon was besieged and "on hearing of the death of Olympias he finally, despairing of success in Macedonia, escaped". If this is chronologically correct, Cassander has killed Olympias, engaged in all the listed activity, and not ever bothered to let Polyperchon (or, more importantly, the Macedonians with him) know that the game was up. Presumably he didn't mind having a force conducting a siege of Azorius for as long as it took to starve out the old general.

Diodorus also has Cratevas' relatives kill Aristonous. Again we see the fractious state of the allegiance of the Macedonians (51.1) which Diodorus refers to more than once: he is near walking on eggshells. Interestingly, Diodorus must be wrong on Cratevas for to have his relatives do the job implies Aristonous killed him. On the contrary, Aristonous "dismissed him on terms after taking away his arms".
Xenophon wrote:I'm not at all sure the funeral was of any more significance than a "Royal Wedding" or founding a city in your own name. ( BTW whilst it could simply have been done by decree, If Cassander wanted to lay the foundation stones personally, it was only a few days there and back). All were Royal prerogatives. If Diyllus is to be believed, the "funeral games" consisted of two duels - no mention of chariot races, foot races, javelin throwing etc Even if he left these out, from the Iliad onwards, funeral games all take place on a single day - the day of the funeral- generally. It was not the events themselves that took up time - a few days each at most - but rather the gathering in of the country's 'Good and Great' to attend.
Athenaeus' citation of Dyliius here is in the context of a long discussion about single combats; as such that is all he is reporting of the "funeral games" which, one strongly suspects, included far more than the four noted here.By such a tight reading we would be constrained to note that entertainment at the symposia of Antiochus III comsisted solely of his philoi (and the king) dancing in armour.
Xenophon wrote:How did you enjoy the rather soggy Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras ? Allowing Defence Force personnel to march in uniform is in marked contrast to the U.S defence force's only recently given up "Don't ask, don't tell" policy....
Didn't go. The city is a "rip-off" at such times. Far better to sulk in front of the tv showing images of sub-continental humiliation...
Last edited by Paralus on Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:33 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 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by agesilaos »

The Diyllos does in fact say that they 'and he performed the other due honours' - καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις τιμήσας οἷς προσήκει - Athenaios then singles out the combats which are his theme. The passage has two contexts the original one in Diyllos book, which is historical and chronologically founded in a narrative and in Athenaios' exemplum which preserves the original chronological marker incidently.

200 miles per day is twice what a messenger could travel but i am going to post the evidence, along with some other travel rates and observation data on the Nora march rates thread where it is more germane.

Could not access Lane-Fox, sadly so cannot comment on his piece. :(
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Scientists to scan remains of King Philip II

Post by Xenophon »

As to the Diyllus quote, 'honours' yes, perhaps a guard of honour,salutes, choirs and so on, but if Diyllus meant the games I referred to, he'd surely have used the word 'games'. Still, as Paralus has pointed out, the point is somewhat moot, as to whether JUST duels marked the funeral. The overall point is that 'funeral games' generally lasted no longer than the day of the funeral.....

Agesilaos wrote:
200 miles per day is twice what a messenger could travel but i am going to post the evidence, along with some other travel rates and observation data on the Nora march rates thread where it is more germane.
I confess I was a little skeptical myself, and this came via a secondary source.( I was in a hurry, trying to keep up with Paralus' posts ! :wink: ) It is probably a calculation, based on the fact that a horse can travel flat out about 10 times a man walking, hence couriers travelling the Royal road from Sardis to Susa, a 90 day journey for a man on foot, travelling a 'stathmoi'/stage of 5-6 'parasangs per day[17.5-21 miles per day, avge 18.75 mpd, Herod. V.53], could theoretically cover 200 miles per day.

In a later time, the famous Pony Express covered roughly 2,000 miles in just 10 days on small 14.5 hand horses ( hence "pony" ), changing horses every 10-15 miles, and riders every 75-100 miles. Now compare the Persian system as described by Herodotus [V.53]
'There is nothing in the world which travels faster than the Persian couriers. The whole idea is a Persian invention, and works like this: riders are stationed along the road, equal in number to the number of days the journey takes - a man and a horse for each day. Nothing stops these couriers from covering their allotted stage in the quickest possible time - neither snow, rain, heat, nor darkness. The first, at the end of his stage, passes the dispatch to the second, the second to the third, and so on along the line, as in the Greek torch-race which is held in honour of Hephaestus.'

Herodotus The Histories, translated Aubrey de Sélincourt, Penguin 1954, 1972, page 556
This a very similar system to the 'Pony Express', though perhaps Persian horses were a little larger. They could therefore probably have covered a similar distance - up to 200 miles per day.

However, what I overlooked in utilising this parallel is that it is achieved by a series of relays, because a horse is 'sprinter', not a 'stayer'.
Modern Horse speeds :
hypthetical calculated max speed :48 mph
quarter mile record :43 mph[standing start]
one mile record : 39 mph
two mile record : 36 mph [only run in southern hemisphere]
100 mile record : 11.5 mph [ reproducing last stage of pony express down the Rocky mountains]
As can be seen, the speed reduces rapidly with increase in distance.
There are a number of bets recorded in 19 C America where riders undertook to cover 100 miles in a day, over varying types of terrain. Sometimes the horse was ridden to death in the attempt.
(digression: this is why Marathon runners usually beat horses over Marathon distances)

I would therefore agree, having spent a bit more time researching, that for a single mounted courier, on a fit horse, 100 miles per day was about the limit- and it must be extremely doubtful if Macedon could match the Persian courier system of relays. I'll amend my earlier post accordingly, though of course this doesn't alter the main premise.


P.S. : The astute will recognise the origin of the unofficial motto of the U.S. Postal Service in the Herodotus quote
Post Reply