pothos.org

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:
(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.

Good gracious me, Andrew. Please read my posts fully if you are going to respond to them. Of course I understand everything you have written above - I already said this, as in "It was viewed as "an attack upon the Queen or against the UK in general, of course". Obviously I know that British Troops fight for "King/Queen and country" so there is no necessity for your elucidation above as if you were explaining this to a class of five-year-olds. You have missed my point entirely, once again. So let me try once more ...

A reporter today or a chronicler of events reports the facts. What is "understood" by the facts is irrelevent unless he also goes into detail about said understanding, and making it clear that what follows is an accounting of how said event was viewed or gives a reasoning for it. Hence, and I will use a modern analogy here:

When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan it was "understood" that they went there in order to do battle with al-Qaeda but the facts are that The U.S. invaded Afghanistan and that is how history will record the event. And furthermore, it is understood that when U.S. troops (or the troops from any other country involved) are killed in action in Afghanistan the Taliban considers themselves to be fighting against the "invading country". Reports of said events, however, say that U.S. troops or American soldiers were attacked and killed. They do NOT say that America was attacked. They do not say that President Obama was attacked even though he is Commander in Chief. And they will not say so in any future chronicling of events. So le'ts go back to the ancient chronicle. First I will repeat the relevant part of the chronicle under discussion for those members who may be trying to casually follow this thread without their eyeballs exploding from the necessary back and forth darting.

That same! month the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt and the land

Taphoi wrote: 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".

Please note you have suggested that any military action involving Ptolemy is a "possibility", despite the fact that the Chronicle says the king did battle with him. You've also suggested that the Chronicle "could be" recording a battle not recorded anywhere else in the histories. And you've postulated that there is slight "evidence" in favor of it being a battle with Laomedon because of a "possible" mention of Nicanor earlier in the Chronicle. Three possibilities versus a clear recording that "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt". Hmmm.

And part of your response to Paralus. (Bold face is mine, italics are yours.)

Taphoi wrote: 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.

I'll reiterate: the chronicle clearly states that the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt. Your reasoning in defense of your own theory allows for the scribe to not strictly adhere to "fine distinctions in troop attributions", i.e., where the Chronicle says the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt it doesn't necessarily mean the king. And furthermore the scribe "more likely" is "off-handedly recording public perceptions" You can read my words above regarding the latter, but there's more to be said about this. Essentially you are claiming that the scribe did not accurately record the facts and he did not mean what he said and he did not record what he meant, dealing with the event off-handedly. Well, such a reasoning would mean that we could likely dismiss anything or everything else in the Chronicle, couldn't we? Just put it down to sloppy recording and off-hand observations? Andrew, this is NOT evidence. This is contrivance.

Best regards,

amyntoros wrote:I'll reiterate: the chronicle clearly states that the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt.

But (as everyone agrees) it was NOT actually the king in the case of the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt either: it was Perdiccas, because the king was mentally incompetent. It is pointless to insist that the key thing is that the king actually did battle, when it was NOT him anyway. There is no difference in principle between Laomedon's actions being attributed to the king and Perdiccas's actions being attributed to the king. They are both senior Macedonians who held commands that required them to act on behalf of the king(s). The point is that the Chronicle evidently did attribute the actions of other senior Macedonians to the "king". Paralus has already conceded this above. He has moved on to claiming that the Chronicle might speak of the actions of various regents, guardians etc as being actions of the king, but he nevertheless insists that a defence of the Empire led by a satrap could not be regarded as an action of the monarchy by the scribe. However, there is nothing in the Chronicle to suggest that its author had adopted Paralus's fine distinctions between different officers of state, which, as far as I can see, are delineated by Paralus merely to suit his own stance. In fact the Chronicle seems to refer to the same individual in different ways and different individuals in the same way. Consistency was not the scribe's strong point, so it is highly improbable that the scribe used a fixed set of rules regarding which of the Macedonians he would specify as having acted as "king", however much Paralus would like him to have. It follows that there is no objection in the evidence to Laomedon's defence of his satrapy having been called an action of the monarchy by the scribe. Quite probably, troops from the royal army had been left with Laomedon, in which case it would have been particularly clear at the time that Ptolemy was attacking the monarchy, i.e. fighting against the king. Paralus would appear to wish to argue that there were no royal troops with Laomedon, but that would be an argument from silence, which he himself condemns.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:I'll reiterate: the chronicle clearly states that the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt.

But (as everyone agrees) it was NOT actually the king in the case of the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt either: it was Perdiccas, because the king was mentally incompetent. It is pointless to insist that the key thing is that the king actually did battle, when it was NOT him anyway. There is no difference in principle between Laomedon's actions being attributed to the king and Perdiccas's actions being attributed to the king. They are both senior Macedonians who held commands that required them to act on behalf of the king(s).

However, as it is extremely unlikely that Arrhidaeus was anywhere other than with Perdiccas and his army, it would be logical for a scribe to say "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt". It really does appear from all your posts here that your argument that it is otherwise is based on your refusal to accept this because it doesn't support your theory regarding the abduction of Alexander's remains. If I am incorrect in my understanding then please explain.

However, there is nothing in the Chronicle to suggest that its author had adopted Paralus's fine distinctions between different officers of state, which, as far as I can see, are delineated by Paralus merely to suit his own stance. In fact the Chronicle seems to refer to the same individual in different ways and different individuals in the same way. Consistency was not the scribe's strong point, so it is highly improbable that the scribe used a fixed set of rules regarding which of the Macedonians he would specify as having acted as "king", however much Paralus would like him to have.

Well ... there is also nothing in the Chronicle to suggest that its author meant anything other than what he recorded! If it were not needed to support your theories then I sincerely doubt you would be questioning it either. As it is, in addition to the three "possible" alternative meanings you have already suggested in your previous post to me, plus the scribe "off-handedly recording public perceptions", you have now added "inconsistency" to the scribe's attributes. As for Paralus' responses, he is being very diligent in detailing the "fine distinctions" between different officers of state, as you put it. I am not concerned with such fine distinctions, Andrew. I am addressing your argument as a whole and it disturbs me, especially statements such as:

It follows that there is no objection in the evidence to Laomedon's defence of his satrapy having been called an action of the monarchy by the scribe.

The evidence under discussion, Andrew, is the Chronicle as written. It can't object to itself, only those reading it can object. Please try and understand this. Is there any objection in this thread? Of course there is! I for one cannot put any credence to your theory when it is based on a succession of "possibilities", "slight evidence" (again this is not evidence, it is a supposition), and all your dismissive remarks as to the competence of the scribe involved.

Best regards,

Taphoi wrote: The point is that the Chronicle evidently did attribute the actions of other senior Macedonians to the "king". Paralus has already conceded this above. He has moved on to claiming that the Chronicle might speak of the actions of various regents, guardians etc as being actions of the king...

I have hardly "moved on". Please do not pretend to state my position as if you understand it and it agrees with you: you do not (will not?) and it does not.

I have stated - repeatedly - that the chronicle makes the distinction between the king, those acting as king (as strategos / "royal general") and satraps. Examples are above though plainly you will refuse to understand them.

Taphoi wrote:...but he nevertheless insists that a defence of the Empire led by a satrap could not be regarded as an action of the monarchy by the scribe.

It is you who say so; I have stated nothing of the sort. Again, were Obv. 23 a reference to a satrap it will have been mentioned as such - exactly as the satrap of Egypt is the party against whom the king battles at Obv. 23-24. Exactly as other satraps are mentioned acting and or taking up positions (obv. 28,29,35, etc.). Exactly as their troops are so delineated: the "troops of Akkad" (Obv. 29-30); the "troops of Gutium" (Rev. 12), etc. On this, adherents of the the "low" chronology argue (erroneously in my view - see Boiy, JHS 130, 2010, 1-13) that Obv. 33 indicates Eumenes - as strategos autokraor of Asia - is in Babylon with "royal troops" as he is the "royal general" in Asia.

Taphoi wrote:But (as everyone agrees) it was NOT actually the king in the case of the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt either: it was Perdiccas, because the king was mentally incompetent. It is pointless to insist that the key thing is that the king actually did battle, when it was NOT him anyway.

It is only "pointless" because it contradicts your "theory"; no more, no less. The Chronicle is absolutely clear that the "king did battle" - not a satrap nor a strategos. All sources - every one of them - agree that Perdiccas ensured that he took the king(s) with him to Cappadocia, Cilcia, Psidia and, most importantly, Egypt. Thus the king was with the royal army for the invasion. Just as Polyperchon would take the king in his abortive attempt to take Athens in 318 (Plut. Phoc. 33.5-7).

As you would have it - in an utterly self-serving and thoroughly unconvincing "argument" - "More likely, the scribe is off-handedly recording public perceptions of the degree to which military actions were backed by the monarchy" also that "consistency was not the scribe's strong point". Amyntoros has correctly pointed out that such view is a license to dismiss any and all contrary evidence from the source at will and you have wasted no time in so doing. Contrivance indeed.

Perhaps it might be best to make this utterly plain and in as simple language as possible. The Chronicle refers directly to the king at Obv. 23-24. It again refers directly to the king at Obv. 26-27: "The king [left] Antigon[us in charge (...) and he] went to the land Macedonia". This describes, in the clearest possible terms, the king returning to Macedonia in 319. Are you seriously claiming some satrap went home on his behalf? The argument is utterly facile. Clearly the Chronicle refers to the king not a satrap of convenience.

I will state it plainly: the Chronicle, in both instances, refers to the king. In the first the king went to Egypt where battle was done with the satrap of Egypt. In the second the king went to Macedonia in the company of Antipater. It is a simple, straightforward point yet you refuse to see it.

Taphoi wrote: Paralus would appear to wish to argue that there were no royal troops with Laomedon, but that would be an argument from silence, which he himself condemns.

Oh please. You are the one claiming - without a word of evidence - that "it is entirely possible that "Royal troops" had been assigned to Laomedon". I have related that the troop allocations at the settlement of Triparadeisus do not include any troops from the royal army for Laomedon. You need to do better.

As Amyntoros has observed:

amyntoros wrote: I for one cannot put any credence to your theory when it is based on a succession of "possibilities", "slight evidence" (again this is not evidence, it is a supposition), and all your dismissive remarks as to the competence of the scribe involved.

It is, in fact, worse than that. Aside form the confected convenience of scribal off-handedness and inconsistency, other evidence is simply ignored or dismissed. The evidence for the dating of the invasion of Egypt by the king and Perdiccas is as follows:

• 1 The Marmor Parium (B 11): "Antigonus crossed into Asia [...] and Perdiccas invaded Egypt and was killed"; Archonship of Archippus (321/20).

• 2 BCHP 3 Obv. 23-24 "the King did battle with the satrap of Egypt" in Philip year 4 (320/19).

• 3 Diod. 18.28.2: Arrhidaeus "had spent nearly two years in making" the cataflaque.

• 4 Diod. 18.36.7: Perdiccas was murdered "after he had ruled for three years".

The response of Andrew Chugg is that:

• 1 It does no such thing. The event it dates is the death of Perdiccas, NOT his invasion.

• 2 An "off-handed" and "inconsistent" scribe means the satrap Laomedon did battle with the satrap of Egypt.

• 3 "It seems unlikely".

• 4 No answer.

As well, to support the response to 2 above, we are told that the Nikanor of Obv. 14 is Ptolemy's general Nikanor:

Taphoi wrote: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.

This has now become

Taphoi wrote: 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".

Firstly, the editor of the Chronicle notes very clearly that this identification (as "Nikanor") is only speculative. Without scrolling through all the sources at least four Nikanors come to mind: He who was appointed satrap of Cappadocia at Triparadeisus; Nikanor of Stageira (Cassander's garrison and naval commander); Nikanor general of Ptolemy and Nikanor son of Antipater. As I've already stated, the speculated Nikanor comes twelve lines above the chronological marker for Philip year 5; there are 25 lines above that marker to accommodate three regnal years. Year five of Philip takes up three lines, year six five lines and year seven five lines as well. That Obv. 14 relates to year four of Philip is not at all likely .

This - a guess based on a speculation and twelve lines above the next chronological marker - hardly constitutes evidence. What it shows is the desperate lengths a closed mind will go to in refusing to consider contrary evidence.

amyntoros wrote:However, as it is extremely unlikely that Arrhidaeus was anywhere other than with Perdiccas and his army, it would be logical for a scribe to say "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt". It really does appear from all your posts here that your argument that it is otherwise is based on your refusal to accept this because it doesn't support your theory regarding the abduction of Alexander's remains. If I am incorrect in my understanding then please explain.

You are quite incorrect. It doesn't make any difference to my theories on Alexander's tomb as to whether high or low chronology is correct. Nor have I said that it is certain that it is not the Perdiccan invasion that is referred to in these lines of the Chronicle. I have been careful to maintain it among the possibilities. What has in fact been claimed, but is completely unsubstantiated, is that the Chronicle can only be seen as supporting Low Chronology. In fact it is clear that it can perfectly reasonably be seen as supporting either Chronology. If you are arguing that it can be seen as supporting Low Chronology, then I have no argument with you. You need to argue (with Paralus and Agesilaos) that it is impossible for it to support anything except Low Chronology, if you wish to dispute the matter with me. In other words you have indeed once again (i.e. in additioon to failing to notice that nobody was suggesting that "king" had to mean a specific action of the actual king) gloriously missed the point, by instead arguing that it is not certain that it supports High Chronology

Best wishes,

Andrew

Paralus wrote:…On this, adherents of the the "low" chronology argue (erroneously in my view - see Boiy, JHS 130, 2010, 1-13) that Obv. 33 indicates Eumenes - as strategos autokraor of Asia - is in Babylon with "royal troops" as he is the "royal general" in Asia.

In other words, you are prepared to abandon your fellow advocates of Low Chronology on this point, because, if they are right, then the scribe failed to follow the strict rules that you have invented for him. Almost hilarious!

Paralus wrote:Perhaps it might be best to make this utterly plain and in as simple language as possible. The Chronicle refers directly to the king at Obv. 23-24. It again refers directly to the king at Obv. 26-27: "The king [left] Antigon[us in charge (...) and he] went to the land Macedonia". This describes, in the clearest possible terms, the king returning to Macedonia in 319. Are you seriously claiming some satrap went home on his behalf? The argument is utterly facile. Clearly the Chronicle refers to the king not a satrap of convenience.

Presumably, your therefore insist that Philip-Arrhidaeus actually fought in the battle against Ptolemy (as the Chronicle states), despite the widely adduced evidence of his mental incapacity? This is necessary, if you are going to insist on the precise literalism of every phrase in the Chronicle.

Paralus wrote:The evidence for the dating of the invasion of Egypt by the king and Perdiccas is as follows…

• 4 Diod. 18.36.7: Perdiccas was murdered "after he had ruled for three years".

The High Chronology position is that Perdiccas ruled as Regent in the Attic years 324/3BC, 323/2BC, 322/1BC and 321/320BC. It would therefore be possible for somebody rounding his rule to a whole number of years to go for either 2 years or 3 years or even 4 years.

Best wishes,

Andrew

There is one glaring problem with Taphoi's attempt to make the chronicle refer to Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon; it clearly states that the battle occurred in the SAME month as someone was appointed satrap of Akkad, this simply does not fit with Ptolemy's absorption, for no fighting is mentioned (and that is not unusual, Ptolemy, was riding on a crest of prestige and goodwill following the defeat of Perdikkas and his good treatment of the Royal Army), of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Seleukos was appointed before Ptolemy's invasion and the chronicle notes his arrival at line 25.

Further, since both Ptolemy and Laomedon owed there position to the kings at Triparadeisos it would be debatable which would be acting on behalf of the kings, Ptolemy seems to have suffered no opprobrium from the central power for his actions. As Paralus has said that Eumenes is described as considering taking the territory back for the kings depends on his status as strategos autokrator not any previous anti-monarchic action by Ptolemy. ll14-5 Rev 'the troops of Antigonos did battle with the troops of Seleukos' seems more like the way a satrapal conflict would be described.

As a side issue, modern analogies are useful to illustrate an ancient usage but make a p#ss-poor starting point for an interpretation of the ancient evidence.

Taphoi wrote:In other words, you are prepared to abandon your fellow advocates of Low Chronology on this point, because, if they are right, then the scribe failed to follow the strict rules that you have invented for him. Almost hilarious!

What is hilarious is your willingness to embarrass yourself. Why would I have "fellow advocates of Low Chronology" to abandon? Might you please indicate where have I stated that I am an advocate of the low chronology for the early Hellenistic period? You fail, once again, to understand or perhaps couldn't resist the temptation to ridicule. Either way, further discussion of the chronology would seem to be lost on you.

I have invented no strict rules for any scribe; the evidence of the scribe's use of terminology is there to be seen. That confusion (in the matter of "strategos autokrator of Asia") exists in the period 318 - winter 317/16 is because there are two: Antigonus and Eumenes. Antigonus refused to acknowledge Eumenes' appointment and claimed that he still held the position. Further clouding the issue, the satrap of Akkad (Seleucus) backed Antigonus in that. That matter resolved itself after Gabiene in Late December 317 / very early January 316 (likely the latter).

You need to read the source material on the period.

Paralus wrote:Presumably, your therefore insist that Philip-Arrhidaeus actually fought in the battle against Ptolemy (as the Chronicle states), despite the widely adduced evidence of his mental incapacity? This is necessary, if you are going to insist on the precise literalism of every phrase in the Chronicle.

Straw men in abundance. Nothing is necessary unless one is desperately looking to dismiss the evidence. I have no issue with the evidence for I'm not the one desperately seeking to explain it away. That, clearly, is yourself.

Taphoi wrote:The High Chronology position is that Perdiccas ruled as Regent in the Attic years 324/3BC, 323/2BC, 322/1BC and 321/320BC. It would therefore be possible for somebody rounding his rule to a whole number of years to go for either 2 years or 3 years or even 4 years.

And that is little more than sophistry. Diodorus clearly states after having ruled for three years. He ruled from sometime in June or July 323 (depending upon the time taken to resolve matters in Babylon) and dies three years later (June 320) However you wish to rationalise it, that is three years not two and one month.

Some decent evidence supporting your position would be appreciated. "It seems unlikely" for the two years to complete the catafalque does not count as such either. Also, I note you have not addressed the points raised about the speculative "Nikanor". Have you abandoned this less than tenuous supposition?

Taphoi wrote:

amyntoros wrote:However, as it is extremely unlikely that Arrhidaeus was anywhere other than with Perdiccas and his army, it would be logical for a scribe to say "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt". It really does appear from all your posts here that your argument that it is otherwise is based on your refusal to accept this because it doesn't support your theory regarding the abduction of Alexander's remains. If I am incorrect in my understanding then please explain.

Dealing with the last part of your response first:

Taphoi wrote: In other words you have indeed once again (i.e. in additioon to failing to notice that nobody was suggesting that "king" had to mean a specific action of the actual king) gloriously missed the point, by instead arguing that it is not certain that it supports High Chronology

My, my, I have "gloriously missed the point" have I? And there I was trying to answer (or question) as politely as possible in the hope that I could maintain a debate with you without incurring little digs and jibes and the like. You may or may not have noticed that I try really hard not to conduct myself in such a manner, although I admit to being tempted when I am on the receiving end. I did ask if I was incorrect in my understanding, Andrew. Was it really necessary for you to define it as gloriously missing the point? And accompanied by a huge exclamation point as well. Ah well. Let's have at it anyway. From an earlier response of yours, to me:

Taphoi wrote:But (as everyone agrees) it was NOT actually the king in the case of the Perdiccan invasion of Egypt either: it was Perdiccas, because the king was mentally incompetent. It is pointless to insist that the key thing is that the king actually did battle, when it was NOT him anyway.

Apparently I am not "everyone".

I said previously that I accepted the line from the Chronicle as written, therefore *I* am of the opinion that the line from the Chronicle under dispute does refer to a specific action of the king. He was with Perdiccas and that fact that he didn't fight in the front lines as did previous Macedonian kings doesn't change anything. His mental incompetence notwithstanding, he was the king (or one of them) and was with the royal army, making it in actuality the king's army, hence the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt.

And the rest:

Taphoi wrote:You are quite incorrect. It doesn't make any difference to my theories on Alexander's tomb as to whether high or low chronology is correct. Nor have I said that it is certain that it is not the Perdiccan invasion that is referred to in these lines of the Chronicle. I have been careful to maintain it among the possibilities. What has in fact been claimed, but is completely unsubstantiated, is that the Chronicle can only be seen as supporting Low Chronology. In fact it is clear that it can perfectly reasonably be seen as supporting either Chronology. If you are arguing that it can be seen as supporting Low Chronology, then I have no argument with you. You need to argue (with Paralus and Agesilaos) that it is impossible for it to support anything except Low Chronology, if you wish to dispute the matter with me.

You appear to have explained above (as this post is a direct answer to my pondering on the reasons you are currently involved in this particular debate) that the Chronologies are the reason although they make no difference to your theories. Fine, but said Chronologies are not my motivation. I would never presume to discuss the chonologies directly with Paralus or Agesilaos as their knowledge of same far exceeds my own. My own opinions on specific matters, as expressed in my posts, may reflect or impact the discussions on chronology, but I have never mentioned the word. I think I will continue to debate as I see fit.

Gloriously

agesilaos wrote:There is one glaring problem with Taphoi's attempt to make the chronicle refer to Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon; it clearly states that the battle occurred in the SAME month as someone was appointed satrap of Akkad, this simply does not fit with Ptolemy's absorption, for no fighting is mentioned (and that is not unusual, Ptolemy, was riding on a crest of prestige and goodwill following the defeat of Perdikkas and his good treatment of the Royal Army), of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia. Seleukos was appointed before Ptolemy's invasion and the chronicle notes his arrival at line 25.

I don't see the problem. Triparadeisus and the appointment of Seleucus as Satrap of Babylonia could have occurred in 320BC under the High Chronology (rather than late in 321BC). Seleucus may not have gone straight to Babylonia. It is not unreasonable that he arrived in his Satrapy at roughly the same time as Ptolemy's attack upon Phoenicia. I agree that Seleucus was appointed at least months before Ptolemy's invasion, but the Chronicle would record the later event of his actual takeover of the satrapy. Line 25 only records Seleucus' arrival in Babylon, whereas line 22 may record his arrival in Babylonia. Diodorus says that Nicanor's army "subdued the whole land" of Phoenicia and Hollow Syria on behalf of Ptolemy. Sounds like fighting to me.

agesilaos wrote:Further, since both Ptolemy and Laomedon owed there position to the kings at Triparadeisos it would be debatable which would be acting on behalf of the kings, Ptolemy seems to have suffered no opprobrium from the central power for his actions.

It must haver been clear to all that Ptolemy's invasion of Phoenicia had no Royal sanction and Diodorus 73.2 actually says this and shows that the likes of Hieronymus considered it an illegal invasion that wrested control of these provinces from the kings. I'm afraid that I trust Hieronymus's judgement on this point, rather than yours.

Best wishes,

andrew

Taphoi wrote:I don't see the problem.

True enough: you see only that which you wish to see. When something contradicts your "theory" you destroy the messenger (the BCHP 3 Scribe) in the hope of crippling his message.

Taphoi wrote:Seleucus may not have gone straight to Babylonia. It is not unreasonable that he arrived in his Satrapy at roughly the same time as Ptolemy's attack upon Phoenicia. I agree that Seleucus was appointed at least months before Ptolemy's invasion, but the Chronicle would record the later event of his actual takeover of the satrapy. Line 25 only records Seleucus' arrival in Babylon, whereas line 22 may record his arrival in Babylonia.

Hilarity becomes Vaudeville.

Far from accepting the evidence as it is written, ever more elaborate and tenuous facades must be constructed to avoid it. The logical reading is exactly that suggested by the Chronicle as written: the king does battle at Memphis with Ptolemy and, at the following settlement of Triparadeisus, Seleucus is appointed satrap of Akkad. He takes this up by month VIII, day 10 (14 November 320) as the chronicle states. Obv. 22-23 would then suit Docimus far better. No need for intricate and tissue-thin constructs - unless, of course, the evidence is increasingly uncomfortable.

Taphoi wrote: Triparadeisus and the appointment of Seleucus as Satrap of Babylonia could have occurred in 320BC under the High Chronology (rather than late in 321BC).

And Vaudeville becomes farce.

So now, in ever increasing desperation, you would have the conference at Triparadeisus in 320 and so easily abandon the "high" chronology which situates this in 321 after Memphis. Thus Antipater awaits the royal army and its dual regents, in Asia Minor, until the following spring. Meanwhile the Royal army, sitting on its collective pteruges, spends the rest of the summer, autumn and winter somewhere in the north Sinai whilst elements of its forces (naval) defect and organise under "Perdiccan" commanders.

This is a preposterous notion and I cannot call to mind any supporter of the high chronology who would posit a year between Perdiccas' death and Triparadeisus.

Forrests, forrests... where for art thou trees??!!

Taphoi wrote:Diodorus says that Nicanor's army "subdued the whole land" of Phoenicia and Hollow Syria on behalf of Ptolemy. Sounds like fighting to me.

The first satrap of Syria was Laomednon of Mitylene, who derived his authority from Perdiccas and from Antipater, who succeeded the latter as prime minister. To this Laomedon, Ptolemy, the satrap of Egypt, came with a fleet and offered him a large sum of money if he would hand over Syria to him, because it was well situated for defending Egypt and for attacking Cyprus. When Laomedon refused Ptolemy seized him. Laomedon bribed his guards and escaped to Alcetas in Caria. Thus Ptolemy ruled Syria for a while, left a garrison there, and returned to Egypt.

Appian (Syr.52) seems to see no great bloodshed. Indeed, the use of a fleet is quite consistent with Ptolemy's later response to Eumenes.

Phew!! .....you go away, play with electronic Opsimeter armed with new clues regarding Antigonus march, and the thread moves on at lightning speed !!

Since I've done the research, I'll post my findings anyway.........

Paralus wrote:
(Ramsay) “This is the "strong Castle of Hirakla," as the Arabs called it, Herakleia of the Greeks...”

I've now located this place, but it is too far east distance wise ( see post) and has the wrong name in any event ! (Nora's name did change, but not, apparently, to Herakleia)

Chris Taylor wrote:
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

Paralus wrote:
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.

Theoretically, I have no doubt that what has been said is correct. The ‘official’ border may be the river or watershed, but in the latter case the reality is that in practical terms, the ruler’s sway usually extends no further than the foothills, because population/villages to tax peter out, and the highlands are invariably the home of wildly independent pastoralists. In our case, the Isaurians for example, who maintained their independence from all comers.

Agesilaos makes some interesting points:-

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.

Boundaries do indeed change over time, and the marker pen is even thicker than Agesilaos says, for I make 120 stadia =120 x 200 yds =24,000 yds = 13.63 miles !! ( A 1903 map I’ve seen places these two towns, just south of the white salt lake Tatta /Tuz Golu on Google Earth even further apart – 25 miles! ) With such uncertainties, one simply cannot declare a watershed a ‘real’ boundary, more a nominal one.

Paralus wrote:

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 Ciilcia 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 Cilicia
“...(Antigonus’ army) 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.

See above regarding boundaries and watersheds and uncertainties.
That said, I would not disagree with the above. Where Eumenes retreated to is plain enough. Antigonus lay to the west, so he “retreated” east, into Cappadocia, which is where we find him next, and from there he indeed ‘passed over’ the Taurus range from Cappadocia to Cilicia via the Cilician gates, to enter Cilicia. But the pass is over 70 miles/115 km long, and takes several days to cross. One naturally would ‘enter Cilicia’ on emerging from the southern end of the pass (and I doubt anyone, then or now, would describe themselves as ‘in Cilicia’ whilst at the mid-point of the pass). The boundary here between Cappadocia and Cilicia seems to have been drawn with a particularly thick marker pen, creating a ‘no-man’s land’ of the mountain range itself, inhabited by fiercely independent peoples such as the Isaurians and the Lycaonians. These ‘marker pen boundaries’, often many miles wide as we have seen, just make locating the real Nora all the more difficult. I have located Ramsay’s candidate for Nora, which I find unconvincing also – it is too far east, and is only 20 miles or so west of the Cilician gates.
Equally, after looking into the matter further, I now agree with Agesilaos that my initial approximate location is mistaken and likely too far west. However, I do believe that Nora is somewhere between that location and Ramsay’s location some 50 miles to the Northwest. More on that anon.

Agesilaos wrote:
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!

To take up your first point, it is a fact that throughout history, down to the present day, that if a revolt or rebellion is to succeed, it must have external help – a well-known military axiom - for otherwise the powers that be hold all the cards and invariably win. ( c.f. North Vietnam’s support for Vietcong down Ho Chi Minh trail; Nato support of Libyan rebels; various outside support for Syrian rebels; Allies support of French resistance; Ptolemaic support of Pyrrhus coup in Epirus; German support of Russian revolutionaries and many more, ad nauseum )
The high probability is that Sisines was supporting the Cappadocian rebels from ‘across the border’ with supplies and treasure, for anywhere within Cappadocia his base would have come under immediate attack by the government forces.

As to finding traces of archaeology, it is a fact that far more remains in every country are unexplored than gets funding for exploration. In Egypt alone, for example, there are over 1200 identified sites of towns, villages, temples and even pyramids that haven’t even been looked at yet. Then there’s the thousands of mound tombs/tumuli in plain sight in Bulgaria/Thrace that are similarly unexplored. The same applies to sites in Turkey. Antigonus’ works weren’t that permanent; “double walls, ditches and amazing palisades.” ( DIOD. XVIII41.6 ). Today the timber palisades have long since rotted, the ditches fallen in, and the (probably) dry stone walls collapsed to mere piles of loose stones, if not robbed to form pastoralists enclosures – c.f. siege of Numantia’s walls and towers for example, unrecognised until Schulten in 1912 or so, and that in populous Spain, not some Turkish mountain wilderness.....

[digression: Diodorus does in fact refer to Antigonus leaving a guard on Nora [XVIII. 41.7] before setting out on his march [XVIII.44.1-2]

And I think Agesilaos is right about not looking in the right place !! Nora, I believe, remains yet to be found....

Agesilaos wrote:
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.

“The Taurus” here will be specifically Mt Taurus itself, rather than the range, and it sounds to me that all these places were broadly along the Lycaonian border. ( having referred to the other places, Strabo says “Situated on the borders of Lycaonia is ALSO....” so I don't think 'borders' applies only to Garsaura - subject to further analysis of the Greek LOL! ). The Hellenistic border between Lycaonia and Cappadocia, to be drawn with a thick marker pen 13 miles wide, ran more or less due south from the white salt lake on the Google map ( Tuz Golu/L. Tatta). In which event Plutarch and Strabo are consistent with one another. Nora does appear to lie between Ramsay’s placement and mine, along the border between Lycaonia and Cappadocia, somewhere in the Taurus mountains. Unfortunately for my postulated coastal route though, it turns out that there is a viable inland route other than ‘cross graining’ the Taurus mountains, that can be taken by armies, namely the one Cyrus and Xenophon took going the opposite direction.

Starting from due south of Tuz Golu, where it intersects the Taurus range, ( a postulated Nora) the route runs more or less due west for 75 miles give or take, avoiding the barren, salty Anatolian plateau and its desert-like conditions, then the route turns north to Konya ( ancient Iconium), which is in the middle of a fertile area ( 130 miles or so), then south-west for 60 or so miles, to south of the large blue lake, then another 94 miles, via Isparta, to Cretopolis. Total distance, the necessary 285 miles aprox !!

Conclusion : Nora would seem on the face of all the gathered evidence – thanks to Agesilaos and Paralus - to be close to the Lycaonian/Cappadocian border, somewhere in the Taurus range yet unidentified, and there is a viable known route which necessarily doglegs north to Iconium, and is the correct distance, and so I now think that 'northern detour' inland route more likely ( a coastal route from the vicinity of a border location for Nora in the Taurus range is 20 - 25 miles or so too long – not impossible, but doesn’t fit as well as the inland route)

 πρὸς δὲ τούτοις συμμαχήσειν τῷ ΚασάνδρῳΠτολεμαῖόν τε τὸν Αἰγύπτου κρατοῦντα καὶ Ἀντίγονον τὸν φανερῶς ἤδηγενόμενον ἀποστάτην τῶν βασιλέων, ἀμφοτέρους δὲ καὶ δυνάμεις μεγάλας καὶχρημάτων ἔχειν πλῆθος

XVIII 55 ii

So trust in Diodoros' source, here he is describing Antigonos as 'apostaten ton basileon' a rebel against the kings, Ptolemy is simply 'te ton Aigyptou kratounta' the mighty man of Egypt. Seems his long standing status as a rebel against Royal authority has slipped the source's mind!

agesilaos wrote:So trust in Diodoros' source, here he is describing Antigonos as 'apostaten ton basileon' a rebel against the kings, Ptolemy is simply 'te ton Aigyptou kratounta' the mighty man of Egypt.

Not the only time Diodorus describes Antigonos in such a tone. Almost all descriptions - "character" wise - of Antigonos are negative. Some very much so. Antigonos defiled Alketas' body; that related above and 19.48.4 where Antigonos' gets away with what those who are not "princes" cannot (ἀσεβεῖς χρεῖαι "unholy" acts) are just a few. Ptolemy, on the other hand, is universally presented as the epitome of the fair and righteous "prince" and king. I would think it rather odd that Hieronymus could so traduce the founder of the Antigonid dynasty whilst so lauding its great enemy. This should give serious caution to those who would write...

Taphoi wrote: Diodorus 73.2 actually says this and shows that the likes of Hieronymus considered it an illegal invasion that wrested control of these provinces from the kings. I'm afraid that I trust Hieronymus's judgement on this point, rather than yours.

But, then again, going with Andrew Chugg's own rationale above...

Taphoi wrote:"Alexander's Tomb" (p 36): Remaining at Babylon, Arrhidaeus spent over a year preparing a splendid catafalque for Alexander. Diodorus records that Arrhidaeus 'spent nearly two years in making ready this work' but it seems unlikely.

I'm afraid that I trust Hieronymus' judgement on this point, rather than yours:

Diod. 18.28.2:
When Arrhidaeus had spent nearly two years in making ready this work, he brought the body of the king from Babylon to Egypt.11

Taphoi wrote: Perdiccas ruled as Regent in the Attic years 324/3BC, 323/2BC, 322/1BC and 321/320BC. It would therefore be possible for somebody rounding his rule to a whole number of years to go for either 2 years or 3 years or even 4 years.

I'm afraid that I trust Hieronymus' judgement on this point, rather than yours:

Diod. 18.36.7:
So Perdiccas, after he had ruled for three years, lost both his command and his life in the manner described.

Well, I'm not sure there was enough white-wash in all Asia to cover Antigonos' homicidal megalomania, and he had after all killed Hieronymos' uncle, Eumenes; a job was probably scant compensation. Off hand i can't remember what happened to Antigonos' body, Gonatos recovered Demetrios' ashes from Seleukos but I think Antigonos Monopthalmos' remains were left at Ipsos, so maybe even his son thought poorly of him; helped by the guilt of leaving him the lurch of course.