Agesilaos Sun Jan 3
1. The Calippic reform as evidence that the Macedonian calendar was reformed in the light of Calippus work shortly after the fall of Babylon – not dealt with at all
Dealt with at great length but whilst I have demonstrated the magnitude and timescale of Kallippos’ ‘tweak’ you have produced no sign of a major calendric reform in 330, even Aristotle who allegedly worked on it mentions nothing.
Yes, you have banged on about chronological trivia while completely missing the point – deliberately or otherwise. As A.E. Samuel says in” Greek and Roman Chronology vol 1 partl 7”, page 49
[The Metonic cycle] “......in 432 for astronomical purposes, and it was used for astronomical purposes until the refinement of Callipus. There seems to be no disagreement in the sources that the 76 year cycle, instituted in 330, was the work of Callipus.”
The fact that the Callipus' refinement commences 330 BC, after the fall of Babylon, gives the approximate year in which the data from the Babylonian Astronomical diaries was received and worked on in Macedon and Athens. Moreover, these calendars were astronomical ones, at least at first, and not in common use. Clearly it is some time between 330 and 323 that the Babylonian and Macedonian calendars are made to coincide.
Around that time Aristotle used the work of Callipus, who modified Aristotles 27 spheres to 34, to revise his own work. The ‘spheres’ were the means by which movements of the Sun and planets, including the moon, could be calculated. Refining these meant more refined luni-solar calendars could be devised.
“The Metonic and Calippic cycles” Fotheringham . Indeed.... The first piece of interesting trivia I find is that Diod XII.36 tells us that the Metonic year began on 13 Skirophorion, the last day of the archon year, not, as you ( and others) assert 1 Hecatombeion ( the first day of the next archon year). Next, the intercalary months for the Athenian Metonic year run 2,5,8.10,13,16,18 – 1 year less than the Babylonian system ( and yes, I had noticed this). This is no doubt because the Athenian year commenced circa June/Hecatombeion aprox (the exact date could change by up to a month), whilst the Babylonian year began in Spring March/April ( and could also change). But as I demonstrated, this sequence of intercalary months is not regularly followed ( which was the whole point of ‘Metonic’intercalary months), hence the intercalation was ‘ad hoc’. – e.g. the seventh and tenth cycles are clearly not ‘Metonic’, and so on.
But not the civil archon calendar, as Fotheringham says [p.29] : “...in all probability Meton never expected his calendar to be used for other than astronomical or meteorological purpose, though he probably knew that it would provide a standard by which errors in the civil calendar could be measured.
So like Merritt he agrees the civil Archon calendar was NOT Metonic.
2. Pythodelos archonship being either 12 years 8 months, or 13 years, depending on method of counting – not addressed
There was never a way of counting the way you want and the proof is in the same sentence of Arrian quoting Aristoboulos viz:
"According to the statement of Aristobulus, he lived thirty-two years, and had reached the eighth month of his thirty-third year. He had reigned twelve years and these eight months."
Which means that there were an extra eight months after both 12 and 32 years, and five and twelve intercalations, which only works if the intercalated years are treated as normal, ie no allowance is made for the embolimic months.
And that’s the whole point! The Greeks generally reckoned in whole years and odd months, but you can’t ‘count back’ to a particular month that way. You need to allow for the 13 month years and count the embolimic months if you want to know the correct number of months to go back! Anyone who can count can see that.
Further proof ? If you count back 32 years 8 months, you come to a birthday in aprox Dios/October 356 ( just as you come to Dios/October 336 for his accession). But our sources mostly agree he was born in or about July/Loos,with some reservations due to the legend that Philip received news of Alexander’s birth, a victory of Parmenion, and a victory in the Olympic chariot race on the same day, that I referred to earlier.( though not all - e.g. Aelian ‘Varia Historia’Book 2.25
:"They say that the sixth of Thargelion[ roughly May/June; Macedonian Daisios] brought much good fortune not only to Athens but to many other cities. It was for instance the date of Socrates’ birth; the Persians were defeated on that day; on it the Athenians sacrifice to the goddess Agrotera three hundred goats, acting in accordance with Miltiades’ vow. The sixth day at the beginning of the month is also said to be the date of the battle of Plataea, when the Greeks were victorious. The previous defeat of the Persians, which I have mentioned, was at Artemisium. The Hellenic victory at Mycale is also accepted as having been the gift of that day and no other, assuming that the victories of Plataea and Mycale were on the same day. Alexander of Macedon, son of Philip, is also reported to have crushed the many myriads of barbarians on the sixth of the month; that was when Alexander defeated Darius And it is believed that Alexander himself was born and departed this life on the same day
If we count back the actual number of months (396) instead of the incorrect years and months, that is exactly 33 years before the end of June 323 – i.e. end of June 356 which is close enough to circa July 356, the date most sources give for Alexander’s birth!!!
3. Manipulation of time by ancient officials/leaders as an example of why Alexander’s use of same was ‘normal’ – not addressed
This is another red-herring , we hear of no manipulation by Philip and that of Alexander, if it is accepted, must have been corrected by the end of the year.
Just so - though the correction need not have taken place the same year! In our scanty sources for Philip, we don’t hear of calendar tampering, ( which however isn’t absolute proof it didn’t take place) despite its evident prevalence in Athens ( and probably elsewhere in Greece) – but Alexander apparently did it to avoid ill-omened‘Daisios’, clearly for an important reason, which is likely to be the death of his father the King being a bad omen, rather than mere Macedonian custom. The tampering could be done because it would be ‘cured’ by the next ‘ad hoc’ re-alignment of the calendar. It could not be done under a Babylonian/Metonic calendar, the whole point of which was regular inter-calary months.....so it would seem the Macedonian calendar was not ‘Metonic’ at the time.
We can say this because we have the Babylonian date and the Attic date for Gaugamelat. The Astronomical Diary, BM36761, gives the date as 24th Month VI, Ululu, and Plutarch Alx, 31 6ff, makes it c.26 Boedromion, we do not kbow the date in the Macedonian calendar beyond its being near the end of the month of Hyperberetaios due to Arrian’s use of the retarded calendar which equated Hyperbertaios with Pyanepsion rather than Boedromion,
Arr. III 14/5 ‘ Such was the result of this battle, which was fought in the archonship of Aristophanes at Athens, in the month Pyanepsion';
You are either trying to pull the wool over my eyes, or else you don’t really understand why it is nigh on impossible to pinpoint a particular day in antiquity ( save in exceptional circumstances). And here, on your own reckoning, we have another date which we cannot be certain of ! The Astronomical diary is usually thought of as contemporary, but it was often composed after the event, as the use of the title “King of the World” for Alexander anachronistically indicates. Also what we have is a copy, not the original, and ‘breaks’ are indicated where the original was too illegible to be copied. See this interesting paper : “The Gaugamela Battle Eclipse: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis”by Polcaro, Valsecchi and Valderame
, which can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/220558/The_Gau ... l_Analysis
..........which also suggests the battle actually took place the day after the eclipse i.e. 14 th Ulul/21 Sept 331 BC.
 and thus Aristander’s prediction was accomplished, that Alexander would both fight a battle and gain a victory in the same month in which the moon was seen to be eclipsed’.
All three calendars must have been broadly synchronous, so there had been no large scale interference.
Since the Macedonian year began in Dios[Macedonian]/Pyanopsion[Attic]/October[modern], the 1st Oct would equate to the next year i.e. the sixth Macedonian year of his reign, but we don’t know if this is the case because we don’t know exactly when Hypeberetaios or Boedromion began and ended ( they weren’t exactly co-incidental with each other, nor with modern October) . Fortunately it does not matter.
It suffices that the battle and eclipse took place in the same month, which was the last month of the year in the Macedonian calendar, and that year was the fifth of Alexander’s reign – which means once again that Alexander acceded and Philip died some time BEFORE Dios/October 336 BC.
4. Welles postulation that ‘Daisios’/May - June could have been the month in question – now acknowledged
I do wish you would stop misrepresenting what is said:
We can say that the Tenth prytanny of 336 would have begun 14th May and run until 17th June, which would be 6th Daisios to 11th Panemos, so if one disregards Aristoboulos and, probably, Kleitarchos and the archon date, it would be possible to place the assassination in Daisios. It is a pity that we are not told when Demosthenes’ daughter died. That he received advance news does not help with the month of the event.
Pythodelos did not enter office until June 18th 336 so May is out and The part of June which is possible is only so by rejecting Aristoboulos and Kleitarchos in favour od unevidenced modern rationalisations.
There is no ‘misrepresentation’(other than your false allegation that Aristoboulos is being ‘disregarded’. Kleitarchos doesn’t seem to enter into it – I asked why you referred to him earlier, but you ignored it.
The archonship, the Olympic year and the consular year don’t co-incide and are merely approximate indicators of which year Diodorus is referring to. You acknowledged this in dating the Advance force’s crossing of the Hellespont to ‘early Spring’ well outside the strict boundaries of Pythodelos’ archonship.
5. No evidence for use of Persian/Babylonian calendar in Macedon – not addressed, and no evidence offered.
See above, as well as the synchronous months of Alexander’s death. Present any evidence that it was not.
The usual convention that “he who alleges must prove” applies, so it is for you to prove, or at least offer some evidence, not for me to disprove. Your argument here is the totally fallacious type known as ‘Ad Ignorandium’ - that a conviction must be true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. The synchronous months of Alexander’s death ONLY prove that by 323, the Babylonian and Macedonian calendars had been made to co-incide – perfectly logical now that all belonged to a single Empire.
Evidence that it was not? Perhaps not conclusive, but see above, the fact that Alexander intercalates ‘ad hoc’ on more than one occasion.....
6. The year in question not being the literal archonship year, on Agesilaos’ own assertions – not addressed
The Oxyrhynkos Chronographer definitely means precisely the archonship of Pythodelos as does the Marmor Parion, Arrian almost certainly does, doubt over Diodoros is excessively cautious, but if the supporting evidence offends thee…
What supporting evidence? Nowhere in any source is it said that the archonship year is precise to the day. In fact, like Diodorus ( as you acknowleged) it is likely this reference is to an approximate year.
7.The presence of the army at the time, as evidenced in the sources – not addressed saved for flat assertion this means Hypaspists and residents who were citizens, for which no evidence is offered, and which is plainly nonsense on the evidence of Justin and Diodorus!
This has now been addressed and you are the one found wanting in evidence. Bad translations and inferences are not evidence.
Sorry? Apart from your assertion, that only the Hypaspists and locals were present, I must have missed that ! Every scholar I have come across agrees that the army of Philip was mustered and present at the time of Alexander’s accession, just as Justin and Diodorus say. Yardley’s translation is not ‘bad,’ as the reviews - and not just those I quoted -vindicate his work. If there is a flawed translation, it is that of Rev. Watson who fails to translate ‘vulgus’ at all and leaves it out - unless his 'the people' is meant to cover it. And the presence of Philips’ army is not “inferred” – we are specifically told by Justin and Diodorus that it WAS present. Ample evidence, unlike your unsupported assertion which is contradicted by the source evidence! Pretty obvious who is “found wanting in evidence”.
The only confusion is in your own mind, you see a molehill in the distant future and make a mountain.
If anyone is “confused”it is you who, in your desperation to cling to your conviction regarding the date of Philip’s death, are prepared to ignore source evidence, and even to contradict it !