amyntoros wrote:Worthington's Philip is finally on its way to me...
Mine seems to have left for Mars on the latest unmanned mission. Who then might read it? I imagine that occurred when Amazon sent me duplicate copies of
Lysimachus, Antigonus The One-Eyed, and
Eumenes back aways. Evidently
From Plataea to Potidaea and
From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus (Translated Documents of Greece and Rome) have also totally perplexed their Martian recipient.
When I can convince the world that the AUD is not franked by the central bank of Congo I shall attempt a re-order (US 0.96 to 0.64 in a week or so???).
amyntoros wrote:...as is
Antigonos the One-Eyed and the Creation of the Hellenistic State by Richard A Billows. Am not sure whether the latter is a worthwhile purchase or not, but the two reviews on Amazon are quite positive. I was swayed anyway after reading that it contains detailed plans of Gabiene. Oh, Paralus, what have you wrought?
Hmmm. I see…my fault eh? Should that be the case I can go to my grave in the knowledge that I have achieved something. Pleased I am (in best Yoda wisdom pose) that you book ended the purchase: Philip and the very interesting Antigonus and Eumenes. Not an Alexander (III that is) in sight.
I know that it is a huge ask, but, Billows should not be read without either Anson or Bosworth handy. Bosworth you have (
Legacy); Anson you do not. Might have to see what can be done in that regard.
Bosworth is mandatory for the chronological view. I tend towards the “higher” chronology (as he does) and believe his order of events – based in large part on a re-interpretation of the Babylonian “Successor Chronicles” – places the campaigns of Gaza and Seleucus in Babylonia and the “upper” satrapies in a more logical order. According to the Successor Chronicles a major war – involving Antigonus and Seleucus – took place over a period of at least a year beginning in August 310. The prevailing view, followed by Billows in
Antigonus, compresses events seriously and resolves the source issues by combining the Babylonian expedition of Demetrius and the serious large scale invasion of Babylonia by Antigonus afterwards.
Errington’s
From Babylon to Triparadeisos is worth reading for the earlier background (yes I have it should you want it)
Anson’s
Eumenes is necessary for balance. Billows is quite up front in his liking for and admiration of Antigonus. His view is that his subject is largely passed over and ignored due to his famous contemporaries (Philip II and Alexander III). He also dismisses the view of Antigonus as an over-ambitious man brought down by the arrogance of power as a view having its roots firmly in ancient tragedy. There is something to this later and, even given that, Billows’ explaining away of or – dare it be said –
apologia for Monophthalmus’ streak of cruelty (the burning alive of Antigenes and the desecration of Alcetas’ body in Psidia to name a couple) can appear almost Arrian like at times.
The campaign of the second Diadoch war is given a reasonable (if brief) treatment and the seminal campaign in Persis is over in some ten pages. The battle plans of Paraetecene and Gabiene are reasonable; the basics are there but there is little feeling for the events. Indeed, a straight take on the Gabiene plan has the argyraspids taking on the entire corps (some 8,000) of epigoni in Antigonus’ army whilst the Eumenid
hypaspists take on the Macedonians of near similar numbers. The disaster at the Coprates, suffered by Antigonus’ forces, whilst related as such (less dead and captured saw Perdiccas dead at the Nile although the nature of the troops is here different) is occaision for Billows to argue that the source (Hieronymus) has employed “considerable exaggeration” when it comes to Antigonid loses and suffering in this campaign to glorify Eumenes (how this pleased his subsequent Antigonid patrons remains a mystery). Anson’s counter view of the numbers makes rather more sense. It is a fact that at Gabiene Antigonus’ numbers – both in cavalry and infantry – were considerably reduced.
Billows sees the renewed warfare between Antigonus and Eumenes as the result of the latter “altering the oaths” of Nora. Anson’s far more logical explanation of Eumenes repudiation of the agreement (for obvious personal gain) makes much more sense.
A theme is Monophthalmus’ outgeneralling of his Greek opposite. This painting of Antigonus as “outgeneralling” Eumenes is consistent and begins with Eumenes being “completely outgeneralled” at Orcynia. Billows describes Antigonus brilliant stratagem of sending one of Eumenes’ heralds back with the information that Antigonus’ allies had arrived and then halving his phalanx depth and extending his line (he had about half the infantry strength of Eumenes). This, from Polyaenus, may or may not reflect the battle; Eumenes, superior in cavalry, will easily have been able to ascertain the facts. The second prong is the nabbing of Eumenes’ baggage. Not a mention of the corrupting of Eumenes’ cavalry officer, one Perdiccas by name, who deserted “when the battle became hot” leading to the rout of Eumenes’ forces. This latter tactic – as the sources make reasonably plain – was a favourite of the One-Eyed.
Antigonus’ decision not to pay to cross the Cossaean’s territory – occasioning much suffering and loss (particularly amongst the light armed) – is ascribed to the One-Eyed being nigh on broke. The idea that pride (ala Alexander) had anything to do with this is dismissed.
The seminal battles of Paraetecene and Gabiene both pass as victories for Antigonus. That Antigonus, at Paraetecene, was able to camp near to the dead (he did have stronger control over his army) gave him this “notional” victory. Billows at least allows that Antigonus had lost many more men in the battle. He also allows that Antigonus will have done this to disguise the nature of his losses. This was a battle that Antigonus lost – his actions in its aftermath eloquently indicate the fact.
Gabiene is put down to the brilliant stratagem of investing the baggage train. This is true and it is the only thing that saved Antigonus from catastrophe. Had Eumenes convinced his forces to take the field Antigonus, his infantry smashed and demoralised, faced certain oblivion.
All of which would indicate that I hold a negative view of the book – I do not. It is quite a good and entertaining work. The thematic material on the Hellenistic state (and Antigonus’ contribution to it) is good. The biography – the first part of the book – too is good (my quibbles above aside). In the end I don’t think that Billows succeeded in separating his admiration from the facts he’s dealing with. That is no discredit and is something we all deal with. I, for instance, may be accused of dealing too lightly with Eumenes.Whilst agreeing with Anson’s view that he was motivated by self interest – his only way back to his privileged position under Philip and Alexander was to fight for it – I see him as rather under-appreciated.
Seems this took on a life of its own - apologies for the length. Perhaps I should simply have written a review...