So it would seem that those who say that the statement that “the king did battle with the Satrap of Egypt” in the Babylonian Chronicle means that the king was there in person must also say that the Satrap Stele proves that Diodorus was wrong to say that Ophellas took Cyrene for Ptolemy and that Agis and Epaenetus retook it, since the Stele asserts that Ptolemy was present in person. Indeed, it is their general opinion that a king cannot be said (by inscribed sources of this period) to act without being present in person. Is the Satrap Stele to be the exception that proves their rule?
Well, Christmas certainly is the season for humbug! Since I doubt anyone would accept that a Royal Army operated with the Royal presence in the cases of Peithon (against the Greek Rebellion in the Upper Satrapies), Antigonos against Eumenes and amazingly, vice-versa; but in each case the generals were deputed Royal powers and given Royal troops as strategoi autokratoi. If you wish to summarise an argument try to understand it.
It astounds me how naïve your positions are, if you cannot see that Egyptian records and Babylonian ones belong to different traditions there really seems little hope. No doubt you will claim Ptolemy was a crack archer?
When he had seized the bow not a shot is from the opponent, a flourish of his sword in the fight no one could stand his ground, of mighty hand, nor was his hand repulsed, nor repented he of what his mouth utters, none is like him in the stranger's world.
http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/lagides.htm a full translation of the stele. These attributes are stereotypical not intended to be taken literally, they form part of the trditional formulae of Egyptian panegyric.
His Holiness had gone to Pe-Tep to investigate the littoral, all in their domain, to go into 38 the inner marshes, to see each arm of the Nile, that goes into 39 the great sea, to keep back Asia's fleet from Egypt.
Seems to refer to Antigonos' sea-bourne enterprise of 306 yet the initial line date to year 7 of Alexander Aigos, 311, so this is a composite stele, which is not unusual but can any part of it be thought to be looking back to 320? There is certainly no need to presume so 311 saw a campaign in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia which peaked with the defeat of Demetrios at Gaza and culminated in Ptolemy's withdrawl with much booty. XIX 93 v
5 Ptolemy, however, on hearing of the arrival of Antigonus, called together his leaders and friends and took counsel with them whether it was better to remain and reach a final decision in Syria or to withdraw to Egypt and carry on the war from there as he had formerly done against Perdiccas.6 Now all advised him not to risk a battle against an army that was many times stronger and had a larger number of elephants as well as against an unconquered general; for, they said, it would be much easier for him to settle the war in Egypt where he had plenty of supplies and could trust to the difficulty of the terrain. 7 Deciding, therefore, to leave Syria, he razed the most noteworthy of the cities that he had captured: Akê in Phoenician Syria, and Ioppê, Samaria, and Gaza in Syria; then he himself, taking the army and what of the booty it was possible to drive or carry, returned into Egypt
.
Why mention events of nine years past, when contemporary events fit better?
Why does Diodoros put the settlement of Kyrene before the Syrian venture and the stele after it, simply Diodoros has compressed events in Kyrene. It is a six hundred mile march, or roughly two months journey, there is then fighting and a settlement; three months for news of victory to reach Ptolemy who then has to sail 300 miles to Cyprus and
4 But Ptolemy, now that the matter of Cyrenê had been disposed of according to his wishes, crossed over with an army from Egypt into Cyprus against those of the kings who refused to obey him. Finding that Pygmalion was negotiating with Antigonus, he put him to death; and he arrested Praxippus, king of Lapithia and ruler of Cerynia, whom he suspected of being ill-disposed toward himself, and also Stasioecus, ruler of Marion, destroying the city and transporting the inhabitants to Paphos. 5 After accomplishing these things, he appointed Nicocreon as general of Cyprus, giving him both the cities and the revenues of the kings who had been driven out; 6 but he himself with his army, sailing toward Upper Syria, as it is called, captured and sacked Poseidium and Potami Caron. Sailing without delay to Cilicia, he took Malus and sold as booty those who were captured there. He also plundered the neighbouring territory and, after sating his army with spoil, sailed back to Cyprus. 7 His playing up to the soldiers in this way was designed to evoke enthusiasm in face of the encounters that were approaching.
Then,
3 Ptolemy, since his undertakings had turned out as he wished, now sailed away to Egypt; but after a little while, spurred on by Seleucus because of his hostility toward Antigonus, he decided to make a campaign into Coelê Syria and take the field against the army of Demetrius. 4 He therefore gathered together his forces from all sides and marched from Alexandria to Pelusium with eighteen thousand foot and four thousand horse. Of his army some were Macedonians and some were mercenaries, but a great number were Egyptians, of whom some carried the missiles and the other baggage but some were armed and serviceable for battle. 5 Marching through the desert from Pelusium, he camped near the enemy at Old Gaza in Syria. Demetrius, who had likewise summoned his soldiers to Old Gaza from their winter quarters on all sides, awaited the approach of his opponents.
Now, it is true that we are talking about an unspecified time in summer to an equally unspecified time in winter but is there really room for a three month delay before Ptolemy sets out for Cyprus and campaigns in Syria and Cilicia?
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
OK, Amyntoros, it's a fair cop. How about when is evidence not evidence? When it contradicts my POV. 