Alexander's remains

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

The location is likely never to be settled. It has to be north of the Taurus range for if it were the Mediterranean side it will have been identified as being in Cilicia. Eumenes can hardly be said to have departed Nora for Cilicia if it were the seaward side of the range.

The most likely location for mine has always been that of Ramsay (Military Operations on the North Front of Mount Taurus Continued; The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 43, Part 1 [1923], pp. 1-10) who places it some 10 kilometres east of Eregli (Konya, Turkey). Here there are ridges of the Taurus and several 1200-1400 metre high "rocks" on the road to Ulukisla (which leads on, eventually, to the Cilician Gates).

Can't agree that Cilicia extended as far as the watershed of the Taurus mountains. In ancient times it consisted of Cilicia Trachea ("rugged Cilicia"— Greek: Κιλικία Τραχεία) - the western part, formed by the spurs of Taurus coming down to the sea, often terminating in rocky headlands with small sheltered harbors, a feature which made the coast a string of havens for the infamous Cilician pirates. The Eastern plain formed Cilicia Pedias ("flat Cilicia"— Greek: Κιλικία Πεδιάς) and included the rugged spurs and foothills of Taurus and a large coastal plain, known to the Greeks for its abundance. Many of the spurs running into the plain were fortified. Through the rich plain of Issus ran the great highway that linked east and west, on which stood the cities of Tarsus on the Cydnus river, Adana on the Sarus river, and Mopsuestia on the Pyramus river.
Thus neither Cilicia extended into the mountains, only the spurs and foothills. From pretty much anywhere in the actual mountains, Eumenes could be said to 'come down into Cilicia'.
Do you perchance have a latitude and longitude forRamsay's location ? I visited the only Konya in Turkey, and went 10 km east. The whole area, to the horizon and beyond is as flat as a pancake !! A vast plain with only the occasional low hillock...

Agesilaos wrote:

It is clear, to me at any rate that an army of the numbers claimed cannot move as quickly as is claimed; Mitchell (Three Cities) agrees and posits propagandist exaggeration but the point seems obscure, the forced march was successful why exaggerate its speed? And then there is that statement that Antigonos took 'all his troops' when we know he left a garrison to besiege Nora.

I don't know why you think armies cannot move at these speeds, other than reading armchair pundits who claim it "impossible". However, I could give you half-a-dozen examples of similar forced marches of up to 40-50 miles a day by Greek and Roman armies and dozens if we extend military history down to the steam age. Even thereafter, smaller brigades and divisions regularly carried out marches like these down to the Korean War. For that matter, in my younger service days I have done it myself on a number of occasions, leading a company of infantry in a Dutch-style 'marching' event annually. The company completed 3 consecutive days of 50 miles per day, with no man falling out, each time - the biggest problem being blisters.....

If you want proof with your own eyes, travel to Holland one July where you can see the annual Nijmegen or Apeldoorn marches.Participation at Nijmegen is limited to 47,000 marchers, most of whom are untrained civilians. Nowadays there are a number of distance categories, the most popular, especially for the 5,000 or so soldiers from many countries taking part, is the 50 km/31 miles per day for 4 consecutive days category - and this is often done by the soldiers with marching packs, rather than 'unencumbered' !!

If completely untrained modern people can do this in similar numbers to Antigonus' army, then I trust you will agree that tough peasant soldiers, inured to walking long distances, could readily do so......provided they didn't have a train of 'impedimenta', which is the real cause of 15 mile per day marches.

I think that postulating a preceding 'ordinary' march when there is not so much as a whiff of evidence in our sources is 'drawing a long bowshot' to say the least ! There is no need to make such a supposition, and I am of the school that thinks we should generally take our sources at face value, unless there is a good reason not to, which doesn't seem to be the case here. I believe we can exclude any preceding 'approach march', which you only postulate in order make your preferred location of Nora feasible, it would appear. Rather than that approach, is it not more logical to conclude that Nora must be within a radius of 2,500 stadia or less from the known location of Cretopolis ?

I also agree with Paralus that we cannot make too much of Diodorus' "all his forces". It would be a pedantic Diodorus were he to have added "save for a couple of thousand left to watch Nora". ( it wouldn't take many, Nora was walled in by the besiegers.) The context makes it clear the siege continued, and any reader, ancient or modern, would readily appreciate this. Diodorus is making the point that Antigonus took a large hammer to crack the nut of Alketas. He might equally have said "in full strength" or similar.

Now then, Paralus, I believe you were about to tell us something about a coffin cavalcade and chronology, not I trust based on theoretical ( and highly variable) march distances ??

[Paralus]

Can't agree that Cilicia extended as far as the watershed of the Taurus mountains.

Your description of "Rough Cilicia" and Cilicia" I do not disagree with: the Greeks clearly made these distinctions. That Cilicia did not extend into the Taurus Range I cannot see. We really do not have any clear idea of what "boundaries" marked ancient "provinces" and modern maps of these satrapies are best ever guesses. The source that Diodorus relied upon had a very good idea though:

Diod. 18.5.2-4
Now from the Cilician Taurus a continuous range of mountains extends through the whole of Asia as far as the Caucasus and the Eastern Ocean. This range is divided by crests of varying heights, and each part has its proper name. Asia is thus separated into two parts, one sloping to the north, the other to the south. Corresponding to these slopes, the rivers flow in opposite directions [...] The satrapies likewise are divided, some sloping toward the north, the others toward the south.

This source clearly places Cilcia to the south of the "Cilician Taurus". The boundary is, if we take Diodorus literally, the watershed where rivers flow north or to the south (the Med.). Thus Diodorus can describe Eumenes, still in Cappadocia, to have crossed the Taurus into Cilcicia

Immediately, therefore, Eumenes bade his men break camp and departed from Cappadocia with about five hundred horsemen and more than two thousand foot soldiers. Indeed, he did not have time to wait for the laggards among those who had promised to join him, for a considerable army was drawing near, sent from Antigonus under the general Menander to prevent Eumenes from staying in Cappadocia now that he had become an enemy of Antigonus. In fact, when this army arrived three days later, although it had missed its opportunity, it undertook to follow those who had gone with Eumenes; but since it was not able to come up with them, it returned to Cappadocia. Eumenes himself quickly passed over the Taurus by forced marches and entered Cilicia.

Now, Eumenes "retreated" from Nora - to where we are not told. This, though, is irrelevant as Eumenes had to "pass over" the Taurus to enter Cilicia. The natural interpretation here is that the passing of the "Cilician Gates" sees one entering Cilicia. Thus, as Diodorus' source states, the demarcation is the watershed that divides north flowing from south.

Do you perchance have a latitude and longitude forRamsay's location ? I visited the only Konya in Turkey, and went 10 km east. The whole area, to the horizon and beyond is as flat as a pancake !! A vast plain with only the occasional low hillock...

No. Quickest way to find it is to go to Google Maps, key in "Eregli, Konya" and the town will come up. Select "terrain" and the "rocks" of some 1,400m will appear to the east and a little south. You can then use the locale for Google Earth.

Now then, Paralus, I believe you were about to tell us something about a coffin cavalcade and chronology, not I trust based on theoretical ( and highly variable) march distances ??

It is a work in progress - interrupted by "these here" postings. Rest assured it is on the way and halfway written. Halfway due to the constant re-writing and the need to refute pervasive modern views...
.

[agesilaos]

Well, the reason I think that 14 mpd is a good rate of march is the fact that when you analyse Alexander's marches and Xenophon's and even Dareios' approach to Thapsakos that is the top figure you get. But please give your half dozen only would you mind starting it on another thread? It is certainly germane to our discussions but may get missed by others who would normally be interested... might stop Para getting distracted too

I don't think I said Nora is definitely near Comana, only that it may be; if I am amplifying the evidence (which I readily confess) you still have to explain how Sisines could use Nora as treasury to fund actions against the realm of the Cappadocians during Strabo's lifetime, or stand accused of ignoring his testimony to suit your position for Nora; these things always cut both ways I would have expected the site to be identifiable through archaeology, there should be remains/signs of Antigonos' double wall for instance and the site described seems unlikely to have provided prime building land. A major reason for not finding a thing is not looking in the right place!

Para's site is about 50m south of Gelin Tepe, if I understand him right.

[Paralus]

Para's site is about 50m south of Gelin Tepe, if I understand him right.

Actually, Ramsay puts it "about" six miles east of Eregli and four north of Ibriz. This latter village no longer exists or has changed name. Ramsay describes it (prior to his identification) in "Luke the physician and other studies in the history of religion":

WHERE the mountains of Taurus rise sharp and high from the southern edge of the level plains of the great central plateau of Asia Minor, and near the point vague and never strictly defined on that flat, featureless land where Lycaonia and Cappadocia meet, there is a narrow well-wooded glen which runs up two or three miles southwards into the mountains. It ends in a theatre-shaped hollow, at the back of which the rocky sides of Taurus tower almost perpendicularly for some thousands of feet. At the foot of the cliffs is the source of a stream which gushes forth in many springs from the rock with a loud noise that almost drowns the human voice. Strangers find it difficult there to converse with one another, and the speaker has to put his mouth near the ear of his auditor. The people of the tiny village of Ibriz, near the head of the glen, when they come to the springs, talk in a high-pitched voice, which is heard across the continuous, monotonous roar of the tumbling water. A river flows rapidly down the steep glen from the source, and out into the plain, where it transforms this tract of the arid, bare, burnt-up plateau into a garden, as rills of its water are diverted into hundreds of little irrigation channels. It turns north-west and west, watched over by a great ruined castle perched high on a hill two miles north of the mouth of the glen, a hill at the western end of a long spur of Taurus. This is the "strong Castle of Hirakla," as the Arabs called it, Herakleia of the Greeks...

This in 1890s and, so, much seemingly has altered since. On Google Maps there is a resevoir which might likely be this stream impounded. I rather suspect one would have to travel there as I can get little from Google Earth.

[chris_taylor]

Your description of "Rough Cilicia" and Cilicia" I do not disagree with: the Greeks clearly made these distinctions. That Cilicia did not extend into the Taurus Range I cannot see. We really do not have any clear idea of what "boundaries" marked ancient "provinces" and modern maps of these satrapies are best ever guesses."

They are more than best guesses. Watersheds (= mountains & rivers) are natural borders: for peaceful / administrative purposes, they are practical because they facilitate communication and travel within a region. Basically, officials don't need to cross mountain passes and rivers to collect tax - that's the duty of the satrap on the other side of the mountain / river.

For warring parties, watersheds are easy to defend. If one or the other side chooses to invade across a natural border, they have to find a new frontier line that it defensible.

So unless there's evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume that, in the eyes of the ancients, the border to the next province was the river and mountain ridge that separated them.

Chris.

[Paralus]

It's actually me that you're quoting there Chris rather than Xenophon.

I agree: the watershed - that division between north and south flowing rivers - is the demarcation. I think that Diodorus (I haven't bothered checking others) is indicating that clearly in describing Eumenes "passing over" the Taurus. That can only mean passing the "Cilician Gates" and thus entering Cilicia.

My observation regarding "best guesses" relates more to boundaries guessed at where no such striking and defining natural feature exists. For example, the boundary of Coele-Syria and Cilicia is a guess. One logical argument is that the mouth of the Orontes marked this as well as the road through to Thapsacus.

Now you only need to securely locate the (in)famous Thapsacus. Seleucia-Zeugma anyone? Suits me...

[agesilaos]

Strabo XII 6 i

The boundary between the Lycaonians and the Cappadocians lies between Coropassus, a village of the Lycaonians, and Garsaüra, a town of the Cappadocians. The distance between these strongholds is about one hundred and twenty stadia.

That's a three mile wide border, probably drew their maps with marker pens. It also has to be said that the boundaries were not immutable,Cappadocia encompassed Cicilia Tracheia under the Romans and what Strabo would call Pontus under Ariarethres I.

I wonder if Plutarch or his source has misread Strabo or his source when he says Eumenes 6 i

Moreover, after he had taken refuge in Nora, a stronghold on the confines of Lycaonia and Cappadocia

Compare Strabo XII 2 vi

In the other prefectures are Argos, a lofty stronghold near the Taurus, and Nora, now called Neroassus, in which Eumenes held out against a siege for a long time. In my time it served as the treasury of Sisines, who made an attack upon the empire of the Cappadocians. To him also belonged Cadena, which had the royal palace and had the aspect of a city. Situated on the borders of Lycaonia is also a town called Garsauira.

In this reading Nora is neither 'near the Taurus', that applies to Argos, nor 'Situated on the borders of Lycaonia' that applies only to Garsauira, which is confirmed at XII 6 i above.

[Paralus]

Back to catafalques and chronologies…

Much has been argued about chronology on this thread and some explanation might be necessary before going on. Much of the last century saw two firmly entrenched and palisaded chronological camps for early Diadochoi history (323-311): the “high” and the “low” (for a somewhat fuller discussion and bibliography see AW V.6 – “Doomed Men of Distinction”) . Very generally, the former dates Perdiccas’ death and Triparadeisus to 321 and Gaza to very early spring 312; the latter 320 and early winter 312 respectively. In between fall the crucial dates of Antigonus’ settlement with Eumenes (317/16 or 316/15) and Seleucus’ flight to Egypt (316 or 315). Except for the period winter 320 - spring 318 these systems are mutually exclusive.

As so often, neither position is totally correct. For our period – 323 until spring 318 – it is enough to say that the low is correct. Arguments to the contrary are either inventive (Bosworth’s notion of Arrhidaeus, “local” king of Babylon, as “co-king” with Alexander) or plain silly (Chugg’s notion that BCHP 3 records a Syrian satrap – as the “king” – doing battle with the satrap of Egypt). That which is interesting, though, is not only the events of 322-320/19, but their chronology. Particularly the pervasive view that Perdiccas, clever enough to deceive Antipater as to his whereabouts during the latter’s invasion of Asia, had to send Polemon and Attalus to recover a hearse Ptolemy "stole" or Perdiccas had lost.

Mid season break.....

[Taphoi]

As so often, neither position is totally correct. For our period – 323 until spring 318 – it is enough to say that the low is correct. Arguments to the contrary are either inventive (Bosworth’s notion of Arrhidaeus, “local” king of Babylon, as “co-king” with Alexander) or plain silly (Chugg’s notion that BCHP 3 records a Syrian satrap – as the “king” – doing battle with the satrap of Egypt).

This is a flagrant and unprincipled misrepresentation of what was written, which was:

I am incredulous that you think that this battle has to be the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt. In 320BC Ptolemy attacked and defeated Laomedon in Coele Syria (see Diodorus 18.43 and the Parian Marble for 319/318BC). This happened much closer to the Babylonian focus of this Chronicle than events in Egypt. That Laomedon was seen as fighting on behalf of the kings is shown by Diodorus 18.73.2: "After Eumenes had news of Antigonus' move, he thought to recover for the kings Phoenicia, which had been unjustly occupied by Ptolemy." The Chronicle actually appears to mention Nikanor, who led Ptolemy's army in Coele Syria, a few lines above the slaughter of the king's forces according to the version here: http://www.livius.org/cg-cm/chronicles/ ... hi_02.html This event therefore fits the High Chronology to the Chronicle, not the Low.

I am happy to note that no evidence has been adduced to refute my suggestion that Laomedon was seen as fighting "on behalf of the kings" and that it is Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon that is referred to by the Chronicle. If you look back, you will only find bluster and rhetoric deployed to counter my evidence. It is a lie that I said that anyone thought Laomedon was the king. I have cited Diodorus to show that Laomedon was seen as holding Phoenicia for the kings, so an attack upon him was an attack on the kings. It is saying otherwise that is silly: it is exactly equivalent to saying that the Argentine attack on the Falklands was simply an attack on their governor Rex Hunt and cannot be seen as an attack upon the Queen or against the UK in general. (And their reason for this position? it is because the Queen was far away and did not personally enter into the battle!!! - I'm afraid that I'm laughing as I write this!)

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

I am happy to note that no evidence has been adduced to refute my suggestion that Laomedon was seen as fighting "on behalf of the kings" and that it is Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon that is referred to by the Chronicle. If you look back, you will only find bluster and rhetoric deployed to counter my evidence. It is a lie that I said that anyone thought Laomedon was the king. I have cited Diodorus to show that Laomedon was seen as holding Phoenicia for the kings, so an attack upon him was an attack on the kings. It is saying otherwise that is silly: it is exactly equivalent to saying that the Argentine attack on the Falklands was simply an attack on their governor Rex Hunt and cannot be seen as an attack upon the Queen or against the UK in general. (And their reason for this position? it is because the Queen was far away and did not personally enter into the battle!!! - I'm afraid that I'm laughing as I write this!)

(1) What was reported at the beginning of the Falklands war was that Argentina attacked the Falklands - not the Queen. It was viewed as "an attack upon the Queen or against the UK in general" of course, yet if any paper had printed a headline claiming Argentina had attacked the Queen of England then the editor would probably have been fired. I'm sure that any ancient author or chronicler would also have been aware of the difference between an accurate report of an action versus how it would have been interpreted by those involved.

(2) As for "bluster and rhetoric deployed to counter my evidence" - what evidence, Andrew? I did just look back through the thread and all I see from you is an opposing argument. If you have actual evidence that it is "Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon that is referred to by the Chronicle" you have yet to present it.

Best regards,

[Paralus]

This is a flagrant and unprincipled misrepresentation of what was written...

Your bluster has been dealt with above. I'll add only that "king" was in inverted commas for a reason. This seems to elude you.

Your claim of citing supposed evidence has also been dealt with above. Your less than apt modern example underlines your less than convincing understanding of the source in question as illustrated by an unfortunate earlier remark:

I am not certain whether the "king" in the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors is necessarily Philip-Arrhidaeus. Why could it not be somebody who was king when the Babylonian Chronicle of the Successors was written many years later?

At the risk of repeating evidence already ignored in an earlier response, BCHP 3 and the Astronomical Diaries utilise certain dating formulas to date the events recorded. The king is the king of time of these events, thus year five of Philip (319/18) refers to Philip Arrhidaeus. The Chronicle and the Astronomical Diaries also references officers, armies and dates. Both distinguish between "royal" troops and those of a satrap. Thus, at obverse 30, the BCHP refers to the "troops of Akkad". These are the satrapal troops of the satrap of Babylonia (Seleucus). In Philip's fourth regnal year (320/19) the "royal" troops are slaughtered. These are not satrapal troops. Later, in 311, Antigonus is accorded "royal" troops as he is the preeminent strategos in Asia (having never acknowledged Polyperchon's appointment nor that of Eumenes as "general of Asia" who is now dead - below) and, until Seleucus regains Babylonia, of that satrapy as well (Rev. 12). Here these troops are stood out from the "troops of the East" (Gutium). There is a clear distinction made between "royal" troops and those troops under a satrap.

Just as important as the above are the positions occupied by individuals commanding armies. Royal troops are accorded Perdiccas at Obv. 25 because, as Diodorus (18.3.1) makes plain, is ἡ τῶν βασιλέων προστασία (προστατεύσας τῶν βασιλέων App. Syr.52; ἐπίτροπος Heidelberg Epitome FGrH 155 F1.2; ἐπιτροπεύειν App. Mithr. 8). Perdiccas thus acts, officially, for the Kings. Perdiccas, needing every form of legitimation available to him, ensured this was understood by keeping the kings with his person as all sources relate. After Perdiccas' death Peithon and Arrhidaeus are appointed ἐπιμέλειαν τῶν βασιλέων (18.36.7) and are in command of the royal army. At Triparadeisus Antipater is ἐπιμελητὴς αὐτοκράτωρ (18.39.2) and he appoints Antigonus στρατηγὸν of the royal army. Later Polyperchon is ἐπιμελητὴν τῶν βασιλέων and στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα and he appoints Eumenes στρατηγῷ τῆς ὅλης Ἀσίας αὐτοκράτορι. These official titles are reflected in the BCHP 3 where, for instance, Antigonus is referred to as στρατηγῷς ("general") and, elsewhere, satrap. Other individuals (Seleucus for example) are clearly described as satrap.

Thus Perdiccas, as regent for the kings who are clearly with him, commands the royal troops who are slaughtered whilst attacking the satrap of Egypt and Perdiccas who "had ruled for three years" lost his life. The notion that Laomedon, a satrap, is anything remotely similar is wrong. Identification of Laomedon with "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt" in Obv. 23 is desperate and thoroughly unpersuasive as I've remarked before. At no stage did Laomedon hold any of the offices detailed above (which the source recognises) nor was he ever commanding a "royal" army. Your failure to understand the nature of the appointments (and the source's treatment of same) results in you confusing Eumenes' actions of 318 with that of a satrap. Eumenes, when moving on Phoenicia, does so with all the authority of the "strategos autokrator of Asia"; a direct appointment of the kings (via their ἐπιμελητὴν Polyperchon). Thus, like Antigonus before him, Eumenes commands the royal army in Asia. Laomedon was ever only a satrap. Were the Chronicle referring to Ptolemy attacking Laomedon it will have noted that the satrap of Egypt battled with the satrap of Syria. It does no such thing.

You need to produce some rational and convincing evidence rather than assertions and bluster.

[Taphoi]

(1) What was reported at the beginning of the Falklands war was that Argentina attacked the Falklands - not the Queen. It was viewed as "an attack upon the Queen or against the UK in general" of course, yet if any paper had printed a headline claiming Argentina had attacked the Queen of England then the editor would probably have been fired. I'm sure that any ancient author or chronicler would also have been aware of the difference between an accurate report of an action versus how it would have been interpreted by those involved.

1) You will find that the troops engaged in the Falklands understood that they were fighting "For Queen and Country" (see for a simple example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_Queen_and_Country)

2) When South Georgia was liberated at the beginning of the Falklands war, the commander of the operation sent this message: "Be pleased to inform Her Majesty that the White Ensign flies alongside the Union Jack in South Georgia. God save the Queen."

3) Would you say "Her Majesty's troops were killed in the Falklands" or "Rex Hunt's troops were killed in the Falklands"

These are sufficient proofs that the official and legal position is that the war was fought on behalf of Her Majesty, but there is plenty of other evidence on this point, if anyone wishes to check. In fact it is illegal for the British Armed Forces to fight for anyone else.

(2) As for "bluster and rhetoric deployed to counter my evidence" - what evidence, Andrew? I did just look back through the thread and all I see from you is an opposing argument. If you have actual evidence that it is "Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon that is referred to by the Chronicle" you have yet to present it.

The only thing that is fairly certain from the Chronicle is that it records a military action involving Ptolemy. Any military action involving Ptolemy in the viable date range is therefore a possibility. Only two such actions that are recorded elsewhere are viable: Perdiccas' invasion of Egypt or Ptolemy's attack upon Laomedon. (However, there is also a slight possibility that the Chronicle records an action not mentioned elsewhere.) There is no specific evidence whatsoever in favour of the Perdiccan invasion, but there is the slight evidence that I have mentioned in favour of Laomedon: i.e. a possible mention of Nicanor, Ptolemy's general in the campaign against Laomedon, in the Chronicle a little above the "slaughter of the king's troops".

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

There is no specific evidence whatsoever in favour of the Perdiccan invasion, but there is the slight evidence that I have mentioned in favour of Laomedon: i.e. a possible mention of Nicanor, Ptolemy's general in the campaign against Laomedon, in the Chronicle a little above the "slaughter of the king's troops".

The editors state that the restoration of Nikanor is "speculative" (based only on nu-ru). Even if it is correct, there are a plethora of Nikanors in the immediate period after Alexander's death. Your "evidence" is a guess based on a speculation. As such it is the slimmest of "evidence".

Your language is deceptive. The speculative "Nikanor" is not "slightly above" the slaughter of the king's troops; it is ten lines above that notice. There are twenty-five lines down to the chronological note of year five of Philip. Those twenty-five lines encompass three regnal years. It cannot be definitively ascertained to which regnal year it belongs.

[Taphoi]

At the risk of repeating evidence already ignored in an earlier response, BCHP 3 and the Astronomical Diaries utilise certain dating formulas to date the events recorded. The king is the king of time of these events, thus year five of Philip (319/18) refers to Philip Arrhidaeus. The Chronicle and the Astronomical Diaries also references officers, armies and dates. Both distinguish between "royal" troops and those of a satrap. Thus, at obverse 30, the BCHP refers to the "troops of Akkad". These are the satrapal troops of the satrap of Babylonia (Seleucus). In Philip's fourth regnal year (320/19) the "royal" troops are slaughtered. These are not satrapal troops. Later, in 311, Antigonus is accorded "royal" troops as he is the preeminent strategos in Asia (having never acknowledged Polyperchon's appointment nor that of Eumenes as "general of Asia" who is now dead - below) and, until Seleucus regains Babylonia, of that satrapy as well (Rev. 12). Here these troops are stood out from the "troops of the East" (Gutium). There is a clear distinction made between "royal" troops and those troops under a satrap.

This is a pointless and irrelevant argument. In the first place it is totally unclear whether the fine distinctions in troop attributions that you are discussing represent strict adherence by the scribe to some official classification. If so, this classification is not reflected in our other sources. More likely, the scribe is off-handedly recording public perceptions of the degree to which military actions were backed by the monarchy, which evidently varied widely as the political situation evolved. Even if a clear definition is being adhered to (perhaps paralleling the comitatenses and limitanei of the Late Roman period). it is entirely possible that "Royal troops" had been assigned to Laomedon. Please therefore explain the relevance of your point to the question under discussion.

Just as important as the above are the positions occupied by individuals commanding armies. Royal troops are accorded Perdiccas at Obv. 25 because, as Diodorus (18.3.1) makes plain, is ἡ τῶν βασιλέων προστασία (προστατεύσας τῶν βασιλέων App. Syr.52; ἐπίτροπος Heidelberg Epitome FGrH 155 F1.2; ἐπιτροπεύειν App. Mithr. . Perdiccas thus acts, officially, for the Kings. Perdiccas, needing every form of legitimation available to him, ensured this was understood by keeping the kings with his person as all sources relate. After Perdiccas' death Peithon and Arrhidaeus are appointed ἐπιμέλειαν τῶν βασιλέων (18.36.7) and are in command of the royal army. At Triparadeisus Antipater is ἐπιμελητὴς αὐτοκράτωρ (18.39.2) and he appoints Antigonus στρατηγὸν of the royal army. Later Polyperchon is ἐπιμελητὴν τῶν βασιλέων and στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα and he appoints Eumenes στρατηγῷ τῆς ὅλης Ἀσίας αὐτοκράτορι. These official titles are reflected in the BCHP 3 where, for instance, Antigonus is referred to as στρατηγῷς ("general") and, elsewhere, satrap. Other individuals (Seleucus for example) are clearly described as satrap.

And why exactly could a satrap not act officially on behalf of the kings? If no epitropos happened to be to hand, the Empire you are describing would have collapsed through Royal inaction. Your argument undermines itself by inventing an utterly impracticable defensive system for the Empire. If "Royal troops" means anything distinctive, it means troops from the Royal army. There are many instances where such troops were seconded to work for local satraps (the most famous instances would be the special missions of the Silver Shields.)

Thus Perdiccas, as regent for the kings who are clearly with him, commands the royal troops who are slaughtered whilst attacking the satrap of Egypt and Perdiccas who "had ruled for three years" lost his life. The notion that Laomedon, a satrap, is anything remotely similar is wrong. Identification of Laomedon with "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt" in Obv. 23 is desperate and thoroughly unpersuasive as I've remarked before. At no stage did Laomedon hold any of the offices detailed above (which the source recognises) nor was he ever commanding a "royal" army. Your failure to understand the nature of the appointments (and the source's treatment of same) results in you confusing Eumenes' actions of 318 with that of a satrap. Eumenes, when moving on Phoenicia, does so with all the authority of the "strategos autokrator of Asia"; a direct appointment of the kings (via their ἐπιμελητὴν Polyperchon). Thus, like Antigonus before him, Eumenes commands the royal army in Asia. Laomedon was ever only a satrap. Were the Chronicle referring to Ptolemy attacking Laomedon it will have noted that the satrap of Egypt battled with the satrap of Syria. It does no such thing.

Or alternatively, and far more probably, the Chronicle reflected the deteriorating belief in the reality of the central monarchy, such that in 321BC all defences of the Empire were seen as being on behalf of the central monarchy, but later the politics became more ambiguous, so the scribe introduced finer distinctions.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Andrew

[Paralus]

In the first place it is totally unclear whether the fine distinctions in troop attributions that you are discussing represent strict adherence by the scribe to some official classification. If so, this classification is not reflected in our other sources.

The distinction is made by the cuneiform sources: satraps are identified as such as are their troops; the royal troops are differentiated.

Even if a clear definition is being adhered to (perhaps paralleling the comitatenses and limitanei of the Late Roman period). it is entirely possible that "Royal troops" had been assigned to Laomedon.

An argument based upon silence. The settlement at Triparadeisus mentions no troops being assigned to Laomedon. The royal army is assigned to Antigonus. Only Antigenes is recorded as taking former members of the royal army to his satrapy. You might please relate the evidence that Laomedon was assigned detachments of the royal army.

And why exactly could a satrap not act officially on behalf of the kings? If no epitropos happened to be to hand, the Empire you are describing would have collapsed through Royal inaction.

I wonder if you simply fail to understand or willfully misunderstand? The offices listed (outside of the "Strategos") are positions that enable the person holding them to act or speak for the kings - what we commonly call the regency. Your attempt to cloud the issue with a straw man argument does not advance your case one whit. Clearly Perdiccas, Antipater, Arrhidaeus, Pithon and Polyperchon held the control of the central government. This is something quite different to a satrap. Perhaps were I to say that these offices acted as king it might be clearer for you. Satraps did not act as king.

If "Royal troops" means anything distinctive, it means troops from the Royal army. There are many instances where such troops were seconded to work for local satraps (the most famous instances would be the special missions of the Silver Shields.)

The only unambiguously mentioned "special mission" for the Argyraspides was when they were "demobbed" to satrapal duties under their satrap and commander Antigenes after Triparadeisus. This, though, did not last as the kings, via the orders of their regent Polyperchon, reactivated them and placed then under the "strategos autokrator in Asia" Eumenes. Eumenes, in this office, had the authority to draw moneys and raise troops - directing satraps in so doing - whilst pursuing the interests of the kings.

Thus Perdiccas, as regent for the kings who are clearly with him, commands the royal troops who are slaughtered whilst attacking the satrap of Egypt and Perdiccas who "had ruled for three years" lost his life. The notion that Laomedon, a satrap, is anything remotely similar is wrong. Identification of Laomedon with "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt" in Obv. 23 is desperate and thoroughly unpersuasive as I've remarked before. At no stage did Laomedon hold any of the offices detailed above (which the source recognises) nor was he ever commanding a "royal" army. Your failure to understand the nature of the appointments (and the source's treatment of same) results in you confusing Eumenes' actions of 318 with that of a satrap. Eumenes, when moving on Phoenicia, does so with all the authority of the "strategos autokrator of Asia"; a direct appointment of the kings (via their ἐπιμελητὴν Polyperchon). Thus, like Antigonus before him, Eumenes commands the royal army in Asia. Laomedon was ever only a satrap. Were the Chronicle referring to Ptolemy attacking Laomedon it will have noted that the satrap of Egypt battled with the satrap of Syria. It does no such thing.

Or alternatively, and far more probably, the Chronicle reflected the deteriorating belief in the reality of the central monarchy, such that in 321BC all defences of the Empire were seen as being on behalf of the central monarchy, but later the politics became more ambiguous, so the scribe introduced finer distinctions.

One wonders why you bother to quote the entire paragraph simply to address the last two sentences. Perhaps it is because you simply agree with that which went before. At the time of the events recorded there clearly was a central monarchy and it was represented by the regent Perdiccas. Antipater clearly recognised this when he referred the matter of Samos to Perdiccas (the kings). The cuneiform sources recognise this central monarchy by dating according to Philip's regnal years and, later, those of the young Alexander.

Please therefore explain the relevance of your point to the question under discussion.

I can do many things but I cannot help with your comprehension skills. Perhaps a re-reading my be in order?

You are yet to explain how Perdiccas died having ruled for three years in June 321 having taken "supreme power" in June/July of 323? I suppose this, like the "nearly two years" to complete the catafalque, "seems unlikely" to you?