Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:11 pm
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.
A full explanation can be found here
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES
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
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. 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;
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
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.
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…
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.
The only confusion is in your own mind, you see a molehill in the distant future and make a mountain.
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.
A full explanation can be found here
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES
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
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.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.
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. 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;
If you wish to suggest it give some evidence rather than the general fact that occasionally dates were retarded. There is no reason, besides desperation to suggest any thing like that here.[15] 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.
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
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.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.
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.
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…
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.
The only confusion is in your own mind, you see a molehill in the distant future and make a mountain.