As I expected, a response that is needlessly argumentative. I did say it was possible, if somewhat unlikely that Eupolemos could be one and the same person in 197 and 170 BC.
As to Polybius' statement, he is simply justifying why he chose the period to write about that he did with an unconvincing rationalisation - obviously not all his information, nor even a minor part of it, comes from first-hand eye witness accounts. Of course he used these 'primary sources' whenever they were available, and the point is that no contemporary Macedonian source is referred to, so obviously there wasn't one.
Your quotation is also rather selective, for Polybius also wrote [Polybius XII ] that there were three prerequisites to writing history - a critical study of memoirs and documents, 'seeing for yourself' - visiting places and carrying out personal research and enquiry to determine the facts and come at the truth, and he must have experience, so as to be capable of assessing events. For the wars of Philip V and Perseus, Walbank suggests Polybius used Rhodian records ( hence indirect) such as Straton when he wasn't relying on Roman sources.
The original question was whether Polybius had a contemporary Macedonian source who might have informed him of exactly what Philip's orders to the peltasts and right-wing phalanx were. The answer is a resounding NO. If there was such a well-informed source close to Philip, that source would have been able to tell Polybius much more about the situation in Macedon generally, and contemporary Macedonian attitudes, than Polybius in fact knew. As Walbank says, it is manifest that "but of the Macedonian standpoint he has no inkling."
As so often in these debates, you simply argue for the sake of argument - here for example you produce not one scintilla of evidence to support the view that Polybius spoke to an eye-witness Macedonian, confining yourself to arguing with what I have posted, and un-necessarily at that.
Sounds like Walbank is saying that the narrative is definitely based on a Macedonian eye-witness ie contemporary, to me.
This is the best you can come up with to support your argument ? The meaning of "goes back to" and "based on" is clear. The ultimate source may have been Macedonian, but Polybius derived this second or even third-hand ( see above). He clearly didn't speak to a Macedonian eye-witness, and that cannot be altered by mere sophistry.
As to Eupolemos’ age, Polybios born c.204 was Hipparchos of the Achaean League in 169, ie at 34. This was probably a much higher rank than Eupolemos’ at Kynoskephalai, but even assuming he was 35, then in 189 when defending Ambrakia he would be 42. It is highly likely that the two men are the same, and that Polybios could have interviewed a sexagenarian Eupolemos.
A 'hipparchos'/lit:leader of horse was a mere cavalry commander, and even the leader of Achaea's cavalry arm is roughly equivalent to a Colonel or Brigadier and commanded only a few hundred men. Eupolemos was co-commander of the whole Aetolian army together with Archedamus - a 'Strategos'/General commanding thousands of both cavalry and infantry - a post which Polybius, had he remained in Achaea, might have aspired to be promoted to sometime in his forties.
It is possible ( as I said ) that they were one and the same, but unlikely on balance of probability for the reasons I gave. Your arithmetic is also wrong, for even on your basis, the original Eupolemos would have to have survived to 82 or more, and still be a hostage (unlikely) for Polybius to have spoken to him in Rome in 150 or later.
While the subject of Eupolemos is mildly interesting, it must be pointed out that the original was an Aetolian ally of Rome, not a Macedonian, and seems to be the only possible non-Roman eye-witness Polybius might have consulted, and only then on the unlikely assumption that the two Aetolian 'Eupolemi' are an incredibly long-lived single person. Drawing a rather long bow, wouldn't you say?
Despite the translation, the Aetolian Praetor, Nikandros, did become a hostage according to Polybios so the clause should be read as excluding the State officials from the age restriction, the confusion being Livy’s rather than the translator’s.
Completely wrong again - unless you are referring to more than one Nikander ! (Another popular name - I'm aware of over a dozen 'famous' Nikanders in Greece. You didn't give a reference). You seem to be confusing events.
Livy XXXVIII.11 is giving the terms of the peace treaty of c.189 BC. The Nikander, 'Praetor'/ztrathyos of Aetolia, at Polybius XXVIII.4 is with reference to a completely different event, the aftermath of Pydna c. 168 BC. Nor does Polybius refer to him as a hostage, merely saying that the Achaeans, including Polybius, should not "allow themselves to be reduced to the same state as Nicander, who even before he experienced the weight of the Roman power, found himself in the utmost distress."
, which in any event does not sound as if he was a well treated hostage for good behaviour , but more like a criminal or prisoner, quite a different thing. This Nikander was sent as ambassador to Rome, with Phaeneas, to settle and ratify the terms of peace c.189 BC. [Plb. XXII.13.] We hear no more of him, but that, as he was ever afterwards favourably inclined towards the royal family of Macedonia, because of Philip's kindness to him, he fell under the displeasure of the Romans on that account during their war with Perseus, 171-168 BC, and that he was summoned to Rome, and died there. [Plb. XX.11; XVII.13; XXVIII.4-6.]
Polybios XXXVII survives only in fragments so any judgement on his knowledge of Andriskos’ adventure is supposition and not pertinent to his treatment of Kynoskephalai.
What a feeble rationalisation and excuse to try and discredit Walbank !! Polybius says enough in the extant portions of Books XXXVI and XXXVII, to show that he knew little of Macedonia and its affairs, in this case about Andriscus, the faux-'Philip' imposter son of Perseus ( the real one was dead, but Andriscus resembled Perseus). In any event this is but one of a number of examples given by Walbank to demonstrate Polybius' general ignorance about matters Macedonian - other examples are his rather thin and caricature-like pictures of Philip V and Perseus and Macedonian affairs. At the risk of repeating myself, Walbank said "but of the Macedonian standpoint he has no inkling."
The 'pertinence' to Kynoskephalae is that Walbank, and others, demonstrate that Polybius had but a vague notion of affairs in Macedonia and hence did not have a knowledgeable, direct, informant. Anyone who was close enough to Philip to accurately report his orders at Kynoskephalae ( some senior courtier or General) would also have informed Polybius about many other things. Since this did not occur, ergo no such direct, contemporary, Macedonian source was among Polybius' informers/eye witnesses - and I know of no credible historian who suggests otherwise.
You have your chronology of Walbank's works confused; he won the Hare Prize in 1939 with his monograph on Philip V, the first volume of the commentary was released in 1957 and the second with which we are concerned in 1967, so the commentary reflects his mature thoughts.
That is as may be, but "Philip V of Macedon" ( the book based on the monograph) was published in 1940, and it is around that time that he commenced work, or shortly after, on his commentaries that he would work on for the next 30 years. He did not, contrary to your implication, change his views on Polybius' knowledge of matters Macedonian - as is proven by your failure to produce a single shred of evidence that Walbank ever referred to a direct eye-witness contemporary Macedonian that Polybius might have spoken to !! ( Of course ultimately all information about matters Macedonian must "go back to" a Macedonian source, but that is not the same thing at all.)
If I come across as rather impatient, I apologise, but that is because it is undertandable when having to correct false and wrong facts, selective information and a weak case, especially when it is about a trivial point - mere argument for the sake of it.
Can we close this thread, or as Paralus put it, must it go on interminably, argument without end ?