“That is post 1 largely dealt with; you may like to review your second one as it contains a howler of Ctesian proportions.”
In the words of John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!” I raised seven major points in that post, and you have dealt with none of them ! Instead, we get a load of irrelevant chronological argument – a veritable ‘smokescreen’ of avoiding the issues.
Calippus’ work shows that information about Babylonian Astronomy arrived in Macedon shortly after Alexander’s occupation of Babylon.
“ The salient point from the section of Chris Bennet’s site you yourself post is that the 76 year Kallippic Cycle corrected the 19 year Metonic one by dropping one day in that 76 year period, taking the first year as 330 (later it was retrojected to October 331) the calendar would not be adjusted by this crucial one day until 254 BC.”
No, that is not the salient point at all. Reference to the year 254 BC is misleading and a huge red herring !(See above) .Callipus (circa 370-c.310 BC) was known to have worked with Aristotle in 330 BC, and his theories date from around this time, incorporating Babylonian Astronomical information. Shortly afterward, Aristotle produced a revised ‘Metaphysics’ with its ‘circles of spheres’ theories to explain planetary movements revised to 34 spheres from 27, incorporating the work of Callipus. This ultimately led to Macedonian Calendar reform. The salient point is that the Babylonian information was known in Macedon and Athens in 330 BC. Q.E.D
“Or if the correction was taken back to the first Metonic cycle, which began on 27 June 432, by 336 there would only be one day to lose. There is no evidence of any effect on the day to day calendar, as I accurately said; and Jona IS working on the basis of Simplicimus, as this is the ONLY evidence that Alexander sent the translated astronomical work back to Aristotle. If you think that Jona is, somehow, infallible, then his note is, indeed, ‘solid evidence’; I tend to think that he is as human as anyone else, whilst appreciating the superhuman effort he puts into his site. A moment’s thought would suggest that Kallippos was more concerned with the Athenian calendar, 28 June 330, looks suspiciously like 1st Hekatombaion.”
Totally irrelevant. The ‘solid evidence’ is the work of Callipus and when it took place – around 330 BC, shortly after Alexander’s occupation of Babylon, and this work led directly to calendar reform ultimately. No logical person thinks in your ‘black-and-white’ terms that one source or person is “infallible” – that is just silly – or that the whole of a particular source is unreliable - it all depends on their use in turn of sources and some may be good, some not so good. Such sweeping generalisations are foolish, to say the least. ( see below).
“Despite your ‘unevidenced postulation’ when the intercalated and normal years of the Athenian archons are considered, based on epigraphic evidence, the ignored Metonic cycle emerges fairly clearly see ‘Athenian Archons 347/6-48/7 B.C.’, Benjamin D. Meritt, Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 26, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1977), pp. 161-191 available at JSTOR.”
Here we have the point missed yet again, deliberately or otherwise, and inaccurate information asserted to boot. The fact that Athenian archons freely altered the calendar for their own purposes was to illustrate the point that ancient rulers did not regard chronology as immutable – after all, eventually it would be pulled back in line with the lunar cycle when it was adjusted on an ‘ad hoc’ basis, and Alexander too evidently took this line in altering chronology, and felt free to alter it if it suited him.....
Merritt’s 1977 paper begins by saying :
“So much new evidence and so many changes in old determinations have come to light in recent years that even such tables of archons as those of Meritt's The Athenian Year (1961) are no longer reliable. This presentation is intended to make available a revised table drawn up in the light of our present knowledge.”
– and these are revisions constantly being made from its original publication in 1940! Hardly to be relied on then.
In addition, the Metonic cycle does NOT “emerge fairly clearly” according to Merritt. His 1977 paper says the exact opposite to Agesilaos claim !!
“This was done because of a conviction which Meritt held in 1964 that the dates were specifically Metonic dates. He and Traill have come to believe that a "regular," untampered, festival calendar was often accurate enough, astronomically, to be in effect the same as the Metonic.
[ i.e. just as accurate for practical purposes] But the known divergences of dates from the Metonic norm show that the festival dates were not ipso facto Metonic dates.”
....and he then goes on to explain the evidence as to why the Athenian calendar was not Metonic.
Totally irrelevant and inaccurate information.
The only relevant information to the question at hand concerns the archon year of Pythodelos, 336 BC, which as I have pointed out several times is agreed as the year of Philip’s death, allowing that Diodorus is defining the year by three different dating systems .
“You really must adopt a more critical view of these online Encyclopaedia, the Iranica is completely wrong, as reference to ancient material demonstrates quite clearly. But to give you some practice researching, I challenge you to find evidence that the Old Persian calendar had 360 days in twelve months and five epagonal days; conversely you can find the incontrovertible proof that it did not. I’d plump for the latter were I you; it is simply achievable, the former is, of course impossible as it is wrong. I’ll post the answer Friday New Year’s Day.”
How very condescending and patronising of you !
Utterly irrelevant of course as to whether Macedon used a Babylonian/Persian calendar – did I not use the word “surmise” because we have no evidence they did ? And frankly I don’t share as deep an interest in general chronology as you. . We are a long way from Philip’s injury and Bartsiokas mistaken postulation, and for that matter from the date of Philip’s death too – a digression on a digression, and now a digression on that !
I don’t care to discuss ‘general’ chronology matters. Especially not yet another digression on the complexities of Persian calendars, still a subject of debate. For our purposes, all we need to know is that the Achaemenid calendar (the one referred to by Darius in his Behistun relief) was NOT the same as the Babylonian one. And there is no evidence that either was in use in Macedon. [see quote from me below] As to the question of Macedon’s ‘vassalage’ to Persia see my post Aug 26 on p.13 of the "Taktike theoriai" thread for just how brief this 'vassalage' really was - certainly not long enough to impose Persian culture including calendars. There's just no evidence for Macedonian use of a 'Metonic' or more properly a Babylonian calendar prior to Alexander's occupation of Babylon, and consequent transmission of Babylonian Astronomy and chronology. Far more likely their calendar followed the overwhelming Greek culture that influenced Macedon, and consisted of a lunar calendar with 'ad hoc' corrections from time to time. Any correspondence of dates, given both were using very similar lunar calendars is either co-incidental or the result of adopting the 'Babylonian cycle' between 330 and 323, and certainly not 'evidence' that Macedon used a Babylonian calendar prior to Alexander taking Babylon.
It should be pointed out that all lunar based calendars are going to be much of a muchness, save for differing somewhat irregular inter calary insertions to correct them. The only significance of the mis-named ‘Metonic cycle’ is that it regularised these intercalary adjustments. No surprise then that Greeks saw no reason to alter existing systems, and the 'Metonic cycle' was not even adopted in Athens .
Xenophon wrote:If Macedon was at all influenced in its calendar by Persia – pure surmise on your part, by the way, with absolutely no evidence to support such a postulation, we might surmise it would have been the Persian calendar rather than the Babylonian one.
... wait till you have done your research task. Funny is it not that the use of the Kallippic Cycle by later astronomers is judged as ‘solid evidence’ of a Macedonian calendar reform, but the exact congruence of the Macedonian and Babylonian calendars in 323, Macedonia’s long period of vassalage to a state using the very same calendar and where there is evident cross-cultural influence, is ‘pure surmise’ ? Speaks volumes about the value of your judgement.
See above for why Calippus’ work is ‘solid evidence’ that the discoveries of Babylonian astronomy and chronology reached Macedon and Greece shortly after Alexander’s capture of Babylon, and were then ultimately used to modify the Macedonian calendar.
"So now, the army is mustered in Xandikos and part dispatched to Asia, then it stands around for the whole of Artemisios, before attending a ceremony in Daisios, still four months from Dios and the date derived from Aristoboulos.
...or rather, a date derived through faulty arithmetic in a 'count back'.Aristoboulos' actual statement has never been disputed. This allegation is a complete falsehood.
Still clinging to the fictional Macedonian Constitution, it seems, nowhere is the ‘whole army’ mentioned, the locals of Aigai and the Hypaspists would be sufficient for an acclamation...
Red herring again! I never referred to acclamation and I don't believe Macedonian Kings were chosen this way. Having been chosen, usually by the nobles, they were then presented to the army/assembly effectively for 'rubber stamping'. and since it was rare, if ever, for all the Makedones to be present, a 'quorum' so to speak, sufficed.
The purpose of showing that the whole army was present, including Greek allies [see my quotes of Justin and Diodorus previously] was to show that Philip would shortly lead the invasion of Persia when he was murdered.(hence not in Dios/October, but must have been earlyish in the year.) There is not one shred of evidence that just the Hypaspists (and locals) were present. The evidence of Justin and Diodorus is clear and unambiguous.
There are uncertainties but they lie in your approach to the simple statement of Aristoboulos, which is seemingly not as good evidence as the suppositions of Beloch, Welles and yourself et al. If you actually weigh evidence then it would seem your scales need mending."
There's that same false allegation again ! Aristoboulos' statement is not challenged, and the 12 years 7/8 months is one way of reckoning, which in reality is the same as the 13 years (Daisios to Daisios) of P. Oxy. when calculating purely by months including inter calary ones.What is challenged is the mistaken arithmetic of a count-back based on the whole years plus odd months method of reckoning. [for the 'n'th time !]. Incidently, Olympic intervals were calculated on an actual month counting, including inter calary months.
Once the Macedonian army had been mustered, usually in Xanthikos/March-April ( but not always), it would still have to await the arrival of the Greek contingents after despatching the advance force, which would take an estimated 5-6 weeks to arrive ( see previous post ), taking us up to Daisios aprox. No time lost at all. Unlike standing around a whole campaigning season [until Dios/October] in 'your' scheme of things. As to the presence of the whole army, see reference to source material in Justin and Diodorus in my post of 29 Dec which is clear– and which you have ignored.
As to Aristoboulos, I don’t dispute what HE says, rather your faulty arithmetic in YOUR ( and others) ‘count-back’ which is completely incorrect for reasons I have now repeatedly given – and won’t discuss again. “There are none so blind as those that will not see”.
On the dates of the archonship of Pythodelos you are closer to the truth; the sixth Metonic cycle began with 337/6 and Hekatombaion will have been 28th June, epigraphic evidence ensures that this was a normal year, thus it had 354 days, so Pythodelos will have assumed office 18th June 336, which would be 12th of Panemos/Simanu (assuming the calendars were synchronised already) 13 days or another 46 Metonic cycles requiring correction by Kallippos to touch Daisios, that’s only 874 years.
So? What is your point – you already agree that we are not to take Diodorus’ reference to the year too literally, and that he can refer to events that actually fall outside it. He is simply referring to the year by Athenian archons and Roman consuls and the Olympic year , which don't co-incide, and it doesn’t matter if he gets the consuls wrong, the point is that the various years did not equate exactly, so only give an approximate indication of dates.
Recourse to astronomy will not arrive at the Attic calendar, but fortunately Athens had a regular civil or prytanny calendar of 354 days in ordinary and 384 days in intercalated years; the trick is to work out which years are which; fortunately all the archonships of Alexander’s reign have been worked out see the Merritt article above.
Again, so? How does this affect the question of which month Philip died and Alexander acceded in, other than that it was an Athenian inter calated year?
The thirteen years of the Oxyrhynchos schoolboy chronographer cannot be right unless the contemporary court evidence of Aristoboulos and that of Diodoros’ source, still about six centuries closer to the action, is dismissed. Wonder if those scales are working yet?
Oh, for heaven’s sake! Repetition will not establish the accuracy of your statements. I have shown why your count-back of Aristoboulos’ 12 years and 8 months is erroneous in arriving at Dios/October, and why for other reasons Philip’s death/Alexander’s accession could not have taken place in that month. A correct count-back arrives at Daisios/May-June, which is indeed exactly 13 years from Alexander’s accession to his death. Which is the same as using the years and odd months counting system you refer to. You would seem to be ‘arithmetically challenged’ if you really cannot see this – but I suspect you can , but just don’t want to admit it. Notice Agesilaos' continual habit of disparaging those who don't agree with him - me, Welles, Jona Lendering, and now the P.Oxy. chronographer. Hardly a valid methodology !
Although the Athenians tampered with their months they readjusted the days to make the year the right length during the final month and did not disturb the civil calendar; that would mean one tribe having a longer prytanny presidency than another, which would not do, not to mention longer archonships.
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.
So you acknowledge that the assassination could have taken place in Daisios? Hurrah! Progress. Of course if we are not to take the archonship of Pythodelos literally, as you have pointed out, but only as an approximate indicator of the year, then it might conceivably have been sooner still in the year, especially when the evidence regarding Demosthenes foreknowledge is taken into account. One doesn’t ‘disregard’ Aristoboulos – this is just a false ‘furphy’ put about by you, mere mud slinging. It is your incorrect deduction on a ‘count-back’ based on faulty arithmetic and methodology that is wrong. Using the ‘years-and-months’ counting system you described earlier, 12 years and 8 months is correct, but in reality because this system neglects the inter calary months, that period runs Daisios to Daisios ( aprox) and can thus also be expressed as 13 years.
Xenophon wrote: Whether this was also extended to the Old Persian calendar is unknown
Should you bother to do your homework you will find why this is false and why it is known.
See above. I have read enough about Persian calendars to know the subject is complex, and debated, and whether it was or not is in any case irrelevant to what is a trivial point in this discussion anyway. Like Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn”, for the purposes of this discussion. There is zero evidence that earlier Macedonians used a Persian or Babylonian calendar. Period.
IG II2 241 (and 240) demonstrate more than that the news had not reached Athens; something ‘Welles, others and yourself’ have missed; to whit, that during the final prytanny of the Archonship of Phrynichos, Demades was still in Athens. Yet, according to Diodoros, Philip invited all his guest friends and encouraged his companions to do likewise; Demades was one of the main pro-Macedonian statesmen at this time, it would be inconceivable that he was not on the guest list. If as you assert the trip was 5 weeks from Athens to Macedon, only if Demades moved his two motions on the first day of the prytanny and left immediately could Philip be murdered on the very last day that prytanny. Again you also have to dismiss the contemporary evidence of Aristoboulos and Kleitarchos.
A fine example of ‘special pleading’. From the inscription itself it is apparent Demades was carrying out important diplomatic business – more than enough to keep him in Athens instead of attending Philip’s celebrations.
Yawn ! Nobody ‘dismisses’ the evidence of Aristoboulos, and perhaps you’d care too specify which actual evidence of Kleitarchos you are referring to, which earlier was only ‘probable’.
Well what somersaults you will perform to support a bad idea. Let’s get this right ‘Evidence is weighed not counted’ but if you can pretend that it comes from one source, which sounds like counting to me, you can reject it, presumably on the grounds that it does not suit your POV.
I thought you said you could read and understand English ? I don’t ‘pretend’ anything, merely point out that in reality, your multiple sources for “archonship of Pythodelos” may well boil down to a single source. This is in the context of ‘counting’ evidence.Half a dozen references derived from a single source are really only one source....
Nor do I reject that probably single source of evidence. But it is a ‘red herring’ because as you yourself point out, the 'archonship year' is not to be taken literally, just an approximate indication of the year in question, like the Olympic year or Roman consular year, all of which are different.
Ultimately any archon date should go back to the list of archons kept in Athens, that would be a single source but pretty weighty I would say. Diodoros does not put Philip’s death in two archonships he makes it the sole subject of Pythodelos’ term. He then ends the book XVI with the death of Philip as he said he would. He never carries an archonship over between books so he starts XVII with Euainetos and reports the remainder of Pythodelos’ office under him, since this is the first archon of book XVII and the material relates to Alexander, this is his method. Thus no ancient puts Philip’s death anywhere but under Pythodelos, despite many variations on the name, all of which makes putting it under Phrynichos, ‘totally unevidenced’.
See above. Whether Diodorus does this as part of his method, or merely made a careless slip doesn't matter. It is clear that Diodorus means 336/335 Attic year (aprox)for the death of Philip, and I have repeatedly agreed this.....
Consular dates are irrelevant for the Greek material or perhaps Xenophon would care to suggest which Roman annalist treated the death of Philip?
It is, in fact, well known that Diodoros has his consuls in a twist throughout this period, those he names for Pythodelos’ year actually held office in 399BC!
I don't think that is correct. Welles gives 338 BC, based on "The magistrates of the Roman Republic. 1. 509 B.C. - 100 B.C." T.R.S. Broughton, which in turn is taken directly from Varro's list and the Fasti Capitolini..... The consular eponymous year most likely began on the Kalends Mai/1st of May at this time...
It is not only Diodoros who puts the murder under Pythodelos, but also Arrian and the chronographers, what there does not seem to be is any confusion over this. Not only that were the murder not in Pythodelos’ term, Diodoros would report absolutely nothing for his archonship. It is far more likely that his Greek source gave the archon and he chose to treat the murder at length and exclude the other material, and the Gods be praised that he made that compositional decision as his is the longest and best account of the affair.
Total ‘red herring’ alert ! The point is that Diodorus gives years of differing starting dates – Athenian, Roman and Olympic – to determine which particular year he is referring to, and as Agesilaos avers, even then refers to events technically outside the ‘archonship period’ ( the advance force crossing the Hellespont).
That is post 1 largely dealt with; you may like to review your second one as it contains a howler of Ctesian proportions.
You have not at all “largely dealt with” my post.
I raised :
1. The Calippic reform as evidence that the Macedonian calendar was reformed in the light of Calippus work shortly after the fall of Babylonc. 330 BC – not dealt with at all ( see above)
2. Pythodelos archonship being either 12 years 8 months, or 13 years, depending simply on method of reckoning – not addressed
3. Manipulation of time by ancient officials/leaders as an example of why Alexander’s use of same was ‘normal’ – not addressed
4. Welles postulation that ‘Daisios’/May - June could have been the month in question – now acknowledged
5. No evidence for use of Persian/Babylonian calendar in Macedon – not addressed, and no evidence offered.
6. The year in question not being the literal archonship year, on Agesilaos’ own assertions – not addressed
7.The presence of the whole 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 untrue on the evidence of Justin and Diodorus!
As to 'howler', I assume that is in relation to my calculations. If it is, I have indeed followed your advice and double-checked and they are correct, to the best of my knowledge..........I certainly hope you are not going to suggest Nearchus left Patala in Sept/Boedromion 325, and only 'began his voyage' then, because there are good reasons that is not so!