Re: ' The lameness of king Philip II .'
Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2015 5:14 am
Agesilaos wrote:
You based your 'count-back' on Alexander having reigned 12 years 7/8 months, but that is not the only length of reign given for Alexander. The best account, because it is contemporary, is that of the Babylonian astronomical diaries - and that apparently gives his reign as 14 years and 2 months ! [see your post above – but one would like to check that further, is the figure an interpolation or original?]. The reason the Macedonian calendar exactly parallels the Baylonian one to the day is because it had been re-aligned to do just that - see my post. According to Jona Lendering this had been done by Aristotle, after he'd been sent translations of the 'Astronomical diaries' by his nephew Callisthenes. Within a year, the calendar had been reformed. That would mean that the 'new' calendar was different to the 'old', original Macedonian calendar of Philip's day ( rather like the old Julian Christian calendar is different to the modern Gregorian one).The ‘new’ calendar was in effect the the Babylonian one with Macedonian names.
You have also left out, or overlooked, at least two other important clues:
The 'Oxyrhyncus chronologist' reckoned Alexander's reign at 13 years.
( since writing this I see you have added another post referring to this as just a ‘rounded’ figure, but there is no need to assume this to necessarily be the case)
Before the Granicus, there were Macedonian officers who were uneasy about fighting a battle ostensibly because Macedonians traditionally avoided fighting during 'Daesius ( May/early June ), naturally,as it was harvest month. This does not seem to be an inflexible rule however, and when needs must, they seem to have campaigned and fought. Nevertheless, Alexander decreed an inter-calary month by renaming 'Daesius' as a second 'Artemesios' [ the preceding month], thus creating an inter-calary month. ( Plutarch "Alexander" XVI.2). That seems a rather extreme reaction to what must have been a minor superstition.But what if it was unlucky because a Macedonian King ( Philip) had been killed in that month ? That would have seemed like a serious omen, and explain Alexander’s action. And it begs the question of whether Alexander ‘tinkered’ with the calendar on other occasions. For example he tinkered with the month that Tyre fell by changing it from a ‘hollow’[29 day] month to a ‘full’[30 day] month in order to comply with Aristander’s prediction.
Ancient rulers felt little compunction in altering calendars to suit their own purposes, which alone can throw out calculations.......
As Welles observes in the Loeb, an intercalary month often came at the end of a regnal year - he places Philip's death in early summer/Daesius. [incidently Badian and Beloch also seem to place the assassination early in the year.]
If that is the case, then the ‘Oxyrhyncus chronologist’ would be correct in giving Alexander’s reign at 13 years. ( or it could be co-incidental if the figure is in fact rounded to a particular year).
Applying this correct method of the number of months, including embolimic ones, to Alexander’s reign we need to add in the (probably) five intercalary months of his reign, and that takes Alexander’s accession/Philip’s death to ‘Daesius’/May early June aprox, or thereabouts in the late Spring.
.Then there is the circumstantial evidence. Philip had his assembled army with him, having earlier that year opened the war with Persia by sending an ‘advance force’ under Attalus and Parmenion [who were incidently campaigning and fighting through ‘Daesius’]. Clearly it would be joined by Philip and the full Graeco/Macedonian army, and so must have been earlier in the year rather than later ( otherwise, if late in the year, we have no information on what Philip did that year).
Second, we are told Philip set out his planned celebration and invitations “Straightaway” in the year [Diod XVI.91.4]
Third, with people flocking from far and wide, that event would hardly occur at the onset of winter, for they would not be able to travel home.
Fourthly, we don’t hear of a winter before Alexander embarks on campaign. [Diod XVII.1.2ff has all this, including Philip’s death take place in 335 BC], again implying Philip’s death was early in the year.
Since there are two different calendars, any simple ‘count-back’ can’t be correct. There are, as I said, many uncertainties regarding dating.
Also your calculation method is indeed certainly incorrect – you can’t mix whole years of differing numbers of months, and odd months to ‘count back’ to a particular month.
If a simplistic count-back were a solution, why do scholars differ so much in their estimates? (rhetorical question ! )
I am not confused at all. You provide some detailed information on the date of the death of Alexander, which is not at issue at all, but perhaps of interest to those of the general readership not familiar with it.Oh dear! You seem particularly confused by a very simple matter. As can seen above Arrian’s source was Aristoboulos of Kassandreia, who gives the month as Daisios a Macedonian month which runs parallel with Aiiaru of the Astronomical Diary, done to the very day – the last day of the month 29 for the astronomer and 30 for Aristoboulos, due to different counting systems rather than radically different calendars.
You based your 'count-back' on Alexander having reigned 12 years 7/8 months, but that is not the only length of reign given for Alexander. The best account, because it is contemporary, is that of the Babylonian astronomical diaries - and that apparently gives his reign as 14 years and 2 months ! [see your post above – but one would like to check that further, is the figure an interpolation or original?]. The reason the Macedonian calendar exactly parallels the Baylonian one to the day is because it had been re-aligned to do just that - see my post. According to Jona Lendering this had been done by Aristotle, after he'd been sent translations of the 'Astronomical diaries' by his nephew Callisthenes. Within a year, the calendar had been reformed. That would mean that the 'new' calendar was different to the 'old', original Macedonian calendar of Philip's day ( rather like the old Julian Christian calendar is different to the modern Gregorian one).The ‘new’ calendar was in effect the the Babylonian one with Macedonian names.
You have also left out, or overlooked, at least two other important clues:
The 'Oxyrhyncus chronologist' reckoned Alexander's reign at 13 years.
( since writing this I see you have added another post referring to this as just a ‘rounded’ figure, but there is no need to assume this to necessarily be the case)
Before the Granicus, there were Macedonian officers who were uneasy about fighting a battle ostensibly because Macedonians traditionally avoided fighting during 'Daesius ( May/early June ), naturally,as it was harvest month. This does not seem to be an inflexible rule however, and when needs must, they seem to have campaigned and fought. Nevertheless, Alexander decreed an inter-calary month by renaming 'Daesius' as a second 'Artemesios' [ the preceding month], thus creating an inter-calary month. ( Plutarch "Alexander" XVI.2). That seems a rather extreme reaction to what must have been a minor superstition.But what if it was unlucky because a Macedonian King ( Philip) had been killed in that month ? That would have seemed like a serious omen, and explain Alexander’s action. And it begs the question of whether Alexander ‘tinkered’ with the calendar on other occasions. For example he tinkered with the month that Tyre fell by changing it from a ‘hollow’[29 day] month to a ‘full’[30 day] month in order to comply with Aristander’s prediction.
Ancient rulers felt little compunction in altering calendars to suit their own purposes, which alone can throw out calculations.......
As Welles observes in the Loeb, an intercalary month often came at the end of a regnal year - he places Philip's death in early summer/Daesius. [incidently Badian and Beloch also seem to place the assassination early in the year.]
If that is the case, then the ‘Oxyrhyncus chronologist’ would be correct in giving Alexander’s reign at 13 years. ( or it could be co-incidental if the figure is in fact rounded to a particular year).
In six of the seven leap years, Xandikos was repeated. In the remaining leap year Hyperberetaios was repeated. The use of Gorpiaios and Dystros did not occur until much later, probably 2 C AD.“....which include embolimic months of Gorpiaios and Dystros rather than, Hyperberetaios and Xandikos;”
The invaders brought the (original?) Macedonian calendar with them to Egypt. This calendar was modified by adopting a fixed leap year cycle, albeit a quite crude one, from ca 280 BCE on. In the latter half of the third century BCE the cycle seems not to have been used anymore, and from ca 200 BCE on the Egyptian calendar was used with Macedonian month names. A source working in Alexandria after this date might well use a contemporary calendar. But let us take your statement regarding Aristoboulos as correct.“We can therefore ignore the Egyptian re-herring (the Macedonian calendar used in Egypt was the same as that elsewhere, the Egyptian Civil and Lunar calendars both had different month names and are, thus excluded by Aristoboulos’ statement that the date was in Daisios)”
I don’t know where you get this from. Every source I have read (quite a number) state that matters were as I have written above – that the ‘old’ Macedonian calendar was re-aligned with the Babylonian one, to become the ‘new’ Macedonian calendar. It was not co-incidence, as you imply, that the two were aligned.“the re-aligned calendar with a new start (it did not exist), leaving the standard Macedonian one which is evidently in line with the Babylonian in 323, including embolimic months.”
The fact that these sources counted whole years and odd months is immaterial, and is incorrect for purposes of calculation. You are trying to ‘count back’to arrive at a correct month, and thus need to know the correct number of months, so your first method is the correct one, placing his death in July.“What of the intercalated months? Another red-herring; the question is did the ancients count the number of months and divide by twelve to determine the number of years (despite the fact that there were thirteen months in 7/19 years), or if they took account of them some other way? Fortunately a good check exists, the reign of Philip III which began 1st Panemos and ended six years and four months later (Diod XIX 11 v).
Panemos 323, if we count embolimic months and we have 76 months and his deposition or death comes in Loios 317, July, if we count years from the anniversary of his accession and add four months we come to Dios 317 (October), a two month difference we also have a report, most likely of his death, from Babylon LBAT 1414 dated to late December. Either two or four months after his rule ended.”
Applying this correct method of the number of months, including embolimic ones, to Alexander’s reign we need to add in the (probably) five intercalary months of his reign, and that takes Alexander’s accession/Philip’s death to ‘Daesius’/May early June aprox, or thereabouts in the late Spring.
.Then there is the circumstantial evidence. Philip had his assembled army with him, having earlier that year opened the war with Persia by sending an ‘advance force’ under Attalus and Parmenion [who were incidently campaigning and fighting through ‘Daesius’]. Clearly it would be joined by Philip and the full Graeco/Macedonian army, and so must have been earlier in the year rather than later ( otherwise, if late in the year, we have no information on what Philip did that year).
Second, we are told Philip set out his planned celebration and invitations “Straightaway” in the year [Diod XVI.91.4]
Third, with people flocking from far and wide, that event would hardly occur at the onset of winter, for they would not be able to travel home.
Fourthly, we don’t hear of a winter before Alexander embarks on campaign. [Diod XVII.1.2ff has all this, including Philip’s death take place in 335 BC], again implying Philip’s death was early in the year.
Since there are two different calendars, any simple ‘count-back’ can’t be correct. There are, as I said, many uncertainties regarding dating.
Also your calculation method is indeed certainly incorrect – you can’t mix whole years of differing numbers of months, and odd months to ‘count back’ to a particular month.
If a simplistic count-back were a solution, why do scholars differ so much in their estimates? (rhetorical question ! )