Macedonian Military Numbers

[agesilaos]

My case a Swiss Cheese? You were asked to give the source of the picture of the coin you had posted and labelled as ‘Armenian Gold coin, Orontes Erewond II’ whereas it is, in fact a silver stater of the Kilikian town of Mallos (a fact immediately apparent to anyone familiar with ancient coins from the perfectly clear inscription Mu-Alpha-Lambda; MAL).

You posted a link to an Armenian site, in Armenian but the coin is there ‘Labelled : Sakavakiats Yervand A. (born and death was unknown), the king of BC 570-560-ies’, so if this was your source you have clearly invented the caption as it bears no resemblance to the one of the site. So not only would you have used a wrong coin you would have deliberately misled the forum with your label. Making you both a fool and a liar, nasty words but on this evidence totally accurate.

The jury will remember that you previously said in evidence that ‘ but in fact he did exactly what I did, relied on a description of a coin from a single numismatic site’ the Armenian site can therefore be dismissed as your source as being neither having the posted description nor, indeed being a ‘numismatic site.

The next site you posted was Wiki, which you now deny using, although it does not require me to point out that the picture is the same and the description matches, a desperate man might even claim that since the entry is about coins it may be described as ‘a numismatic site.

But there is your third and last site, it certainly ticks the numismatic box, but it is a different coin and ascribed to Artabazos c 356, so even if it was an Orontes, it would be from the satraps Rebellion and from Mysia; both geographically and chronologically distant from the Orontes who led the Armenian forces at Gaugamela. This cannot be the site you consulted either.

People will draw their own conclusions; I tend to think that if the prosecuting council had as good a grip as yourself I would walk free with a tidy sum in damages.

[agesilaos]

Oops! Looks like I missed out a crucial passage that ruins my case, but hold on what’s this in the excerpt I did post

After the dispersion of the immense empire created by Alexander of Macedonia, coupled with an increasing demand for money in local markets in the third century B.C., the first coins were minted by the Armenian rulers of Sophene (Dzopk'). International trading links were made through the established connections of the realm of Sophene located in the southwest of the Armenian plateau.

There a pictures of the said third century BC Sophenian coinage here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sophene
Had you read the post you might have spotted that the Orontid coins came from Sophene later than the period under discussion; is this your petard?

Au contraire, according to your source also it is valid, andyou can find two dozen different coins minted by Orontes here:

http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?
search=Orontes&submit=search&album=search&title=on&newer_than=&caption=on&older_than=&keywords=on&type=AND&pid=on

Mostly from his time in exile as governor of Mysia.

And your source for this mythical exile? These are of the Satrap of Mysia mid fourth century as the descriptions show, maybe you can find more totally irrelevant coins. The notion of internal exile to high office is original.

.......Really? How is it if you really researched other sources, you managed to miss the many sites listing Orontid coins, gold, silver and bronze; not to mention the many history sites that refer to same. The image I posted was simply one example, and was just for illustrative purposes.

But not one of the coins is of the relevant Orontes nor the right area nor time; I can see that so why would I post them? I leave the misdirection and irrelevant to you. Indeed the coin was illustrative of the alleged independence of Armenia under Orontes rather than a satrapy under Mithrines and then Neoptolemos; it is just a shame that it is neither Armenian, OrontesII nor even gold.

Furthermore you seem somewhat geographically challenged (sloppy preparation? ); Mallus is about 240 miles from Armenian territory proper and bearing in mind the Orontids also ruled Sophene and Commagene as part of the Armenian satrapy ( until the Seleucids split these away), a mere 120 miles. Mallus, like various other Cilician cities, was a sanctuary with an oracle and independent under the Persians, and apparently Alexander too, who is supposed to have exempted the city from taxes when he passed through. What more natural than that they should choose to portray the last great independent Persian Satrap, if they wished ? For that matter they might well have wanted to curry favour with such a powerful neighbour, who probably had considerable influence there. For that matter, Orontes could have ordered the coins himself from the city’s mint.

Yes it was a sloppy distance I used your method

for comparison purposes one picks an arbitrary point somewhere near the centre....

Seems the correct method is actually extend the territory as much as possible and take the nearest point! Still I’ll go with 120miles through the territory of the power against whom he is allegedly in rebellion. For the rest of the fantasy…how many castles do you intend to build in the air?

However, as I said the identity of the Satrap on the coin must be uncertain, for the reasons I specified

So one has to wonder at the confidence with which you initially ascribed and have just conconcocted the ridiculous fable above.

An ingenious postulation, and perhaps possible, but one which cannot be proved, nor for that matter is there any evidence for such a thing, nor, given that the image appears on several other sites , is it possible to determine where it originated.

And here is why I have no fear of facing your capital accusations

comparison.jpg (101.45 KiB) Viewed 43687 times

From left to right, the picture from the Armenian site, the picture from Triton sale of a silver stater, the picture I posted from a reputable numismatic site of a silver stater and the Wiki picture you posted. I am not sure of the state of your eyesight but my blind friends can see they are all of the same coin; which must be silver and therefore photo-shopped into gold. I am sure the Bull will grant me a recess there I need to get some drink in order to level the playing field a bit; this is all terribly one-sided

[agesilaos]

No it is DEFINITELY NOT a coin of Orontes II, it was struck in Mallos over which he never held the slightest sway.

Another assertion totally unsupported by evidence - and see earlier in this post. There is no inherent reason why if portraying a Satrap on the city’s coins, they could not choose Orontes II, and lots of reasons as I said ante, why he might be chosen, or he might have chosen to use the city’s mint to mint coins for him. We cannot know why that particular person was chosen, nor identify him for certain, it now appears. But you most certainly cannot say it is definitely not a coin portraying Orontes II.

Do you mean earlier in the post where you made up some fairy-tale about a rebellious satrap who had been exiled to Mysia, as satrap and then thirty years on was honoured by a Greek city ruled by Alexander as ‘the last defiant Persian satrap’ perhaps you can point to the evidence supporting that. Desperate men, if you really cannot see the holes in this unevidenced fiction there is no hope.

90 1 When Molon was archon at Athens, in Rome there were elected as consuls Lucius Genucius and Quintus Servilius. During their term of office the inhabitants of the Asiatic coast revolted from Persia, and some of the satraps and generals rising in insurrection made war on Artaxerxes. 2 At the same time Tachôs the Egyptian king decided to fight the Persians and prepared ships and gathered infantry forces. p203Having procured many mercenaries from the Greek cities, he persuaded the Lacedaemonians likewise to fight with him, for the Spartans were estranged from Artaxerxes because the Messenians had been included by the King on the same terms as the other Greeks in the general peace. When the general uprising against the Persians reached such large proportions, the King also began making preparations for the war. 3 For at one and the same time he must needs fight the Egyptian king, the Greek cities of Asia, the Lacedaemonians and the allies of these, — satraps and generals who ruled the coastal districts and had agreed upon making common cause with them. Of these the most distinguished were Ariobarzanes, satrap of Phrygia, who at the death of Mithridates had taken p205possession of his kingdom, and Mausolus, overlord of Caria, who was master of many strongholds and important cities of which the hearth and mother city was Halicarnassus, which possessed a famous acropolis and the royal palace of Caria; and, in addition to the two already mentioned, Orontes, satrap of Mysia, and Autophradates, satrap of Lydia. Apart from the Ionians were Lycians, Pisidians, Pamphylians, and Cilicians, likewise Syrians, Phoenicians, and practically all the coastal peoples. 4 With the revolt so extensive, half the revenues of the King were cut off and what remained were insufficient for the expenses of the war.
91 1 The peoples who had revolted from the King chose as their general Orontes in charge of all branches of the administration. He, having taken over the command and funds needed for recruiting mercenaries, amounting to a year's pay for twenty thousand men, proceeded to betray his trust. For suspecting that he would obtain from the King not only great rewards but would also succeed to the satrapy of all the coastal region if he should deliver the rebels into the hands of the Persians, he first arrested those who brought the money and dispatched them to Artaxerxes; then afterwards he delivered many of the cities and the soldiers who had been hired to the commanding officers who had been sent by the King. 2 In a similar manner, betrayal occurred also in Cappadocia, where a strange and unexpected thing took place. Artabazus, the King's general, had invaded Cappadocia with a large army, and Datames, the satrap of the country, had taken the field against him, for he had collected many horsemen and had twenty thousand mercenary foot-soldiers serving with him. 3 But the father-in law of Datames, who commanded the cavalry, wishing to acquire favour and at the same time having an eye to his own safety, deserted at night and rode off with the cavalry to the enemy, having the day before made arrangements with Artabazus for the betrayal.4 Datames then summoned his mercenaries, promised them largess, and launched an attack upon the deserters. Finding them on the point of joining forces with the enemy and himself attacking at the same time Artabazus' guard and the horsemen, he slew all who came to close quarters. Artabazus, at first unaware of the truth and suspecting that the man who had deserted Datames was effecting a counter-betrayal, ordered his own men to slay all the horsemen who approached. And Mithrobarzanes, caught between the two parties one group seeking revenge against him as a traitor; the other trying to punish him for counter-betrayal — was in a predicament, but since the situation allowed no time to deliberate, he had recourse to force, and fighting against both parties caused grievous slaughter. When, finally, more than ten thousand had been slain, Datames, having put the rest of Mithrobarzanes' men to flight and slain many of them, recalled with the trumpet his soldiers who had gone in pursuit. 6 Amongst the survivors in the cavalry some went back to Datames and asked for pardon; the rest did nothing, having nowhere to turn, and finally, being about five hundred in number, were surrounded and shot down by Datames. 7 As for Datames, though even before this he was admired for his generalship, at that time he won far greater acclaim for both his courage and his sagacity in the art of war; but King Artaxerxes, when he learned about Datames' exploit as general, because he was impatient to be rid of him, instigated his assassination.
92 1 While these things were going on, Rheomithres, who had been sent by the insurgents to King Tachôs in Egypt, received from him five hundred talents of silver and fifty warships, and sailed to Asia to the city named Leucae. To this city he summoned many leaders of the insurgents. These he arrested and sent in irons to Artaxerxes, and, though he himself had been an insurgent, by the favours that he conferred through his betrayal, he made his peace with the King.

Diod XV

This is the actual evidence for the period in which the coin was struck, c. thirty years before Alexander’s expedition. As can be seen this Orontes was satrap of Mysia, We cannot say whether the Orontids had been permanently excluded from Armenia By Artaxerxes II but Justin has the future Darius take the satrapy after his single combat with the Kardusian champion; X 3

For this honourable service Codomannus was made governor of Armenia.

Orontes II, the one we are interested in was raised, then by Darius III when he became king with no hint of a former career on the Western coast in any surviving source.

Since Alexander the Great did not subdue Armenia and never even approached this province, it must be the same Orontes, who is satrap of Armenia still in post-Alexandrian times, about 316 B.C.E. (Diodorus 19.23.3; Polyaenus 4.8.3), all the more so as this Orontes is a friend of the Macedonian general Peucestas

Yet three sources attest to the appointment of Mithrines, the conclusion that ‘it must be the same Orontes’, is a complete non-sequitur, nor is friendship with Peukestas any help in discerning the status of Armenia. I see that the encyclopaediairanica is now a trustworthy source, maybe you should read some more of its entries. Proof if any was needed of Caesar’s dictum, ‘Men readily believe what they desire to’.

Just how much source evidence for anything in Armenia from the appointment of Mithrines to that of Neoptolemos? Absolutely none, so the non-mention of Mithrines signifies nothing.

You seem to have completely forgotten your position, which is that Armenia was independent ruled by Orontes throughout and that it was hostile to Neoptolemos. This incredibly is not compatible with a position of eventual vassaldom; Alexander frequently left the local man in charge after their submission, take the Good Poros for example, yet their areas were part of the empire and not independent and hostile. That you have now decided that these positions are compatible comes as no surprise; bad ideas breed incestuously.

Mithridates of Pontos claimed that Armenia had not been conquered by Alexander, Justin XXXVIII 7

7 “But as for himself, if he were compared with them as to respectability of descent, he was of more honourable origin than that mixed mass of settlers, counting his ancestors, on his father’s side, from Cyrus and Darius, the founders of the Persian empire, and those on his mother’s side from Alexander the Great and Seleucus Nicator, who established the Macedonian empire; or, if their people were compared with his own, he was at the head of nations, which were not merely a match for the power of Rome, but had withstood even that of Macedonia. That none of the people under his command had ever endured a foreign yoke, or obeyed any rulers but their own native princes; for whether they looked on Cappadocia or Paphlagonia, Pontus or Bithynia, or the Greater and Lesser Armenia, they would find that neither Alexander, who subdued all Asia, nor any of his successors or posterity, had meddled with any one of those nations.

Pretty empty bombast but this is the only literary evidence for continued independence, the inclusion of Kappodokia, the same Kappodokia which Perdikkas conquered, speaks volumes for how far this should be taken at face value.

All, which is to say, both, coins of Ariarathes have Aramaic inscriptions surprised you could not be bothered to check that at Wildwinds

Cappadocia, Kings of, Ariarathes I AR Drachm. 333-322 BC. Gaziura mint. Baal of Gaziura seated left, holding eagle, grain ear &.jpg (31.14 KiB) Viewed 43677 times

Cappadocia, Ariarathes I or uncertain dynast. AE13. 330-322 BC. Archer or Satrap, wearing Cop (Cappadocia.jpg (40 KiB) Viewed 43677 times

With a start Hans Christian Xenophon woke from his reverie, he had left Rumpole’s evidence bundle at Chambers, it looked like he would be exhibit A through to E…

[Xenophon]

Post by Paralus » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:18 pm

Xenophon wrote:That’s not what the quotation says, which is “on the point of disbanding” and of course they were not recalled from their own hearths, for they never got anywhere near them – that is just exaggerated hyperbole, of course. Any unit disbandment would not take place until they arrived in Macedon, obviously

.


What this passage absolutely and clearly implies is that the Argyraspides were dismissed from the royal army and deputed a particular job. A job they had completed after which they were on their way to "home and hearth". Eumenes, on the authority of the kings, countermanded this retirement.

More ‘loose’ and incorrect use of terminology, I’m afraid. When Antigenes received the plum Satrapy of Susiane as his reward for his part in the murder of Perdiccas at Triparadeisos in 321 BC [Diod. XVIII.39.2], he needed troops, and he received his own ‘Silver Shields’( now no longer Royal Guards after the death of Alexander. ) to guard treasure, garrison Susa and provide him with troops. That is not ‘dismissed’ in anyone’s language. In military terms it is called ‘detached service’ – a far more accurate term. Subsequently in318 BC Antigenes and the ‘Silver Shields’ were sent home to be disbanded/retire there, and were given the task of convoying treasure to Macedon. They got as far as Cilicia – a long way from Macedon – when they were‘re-tasked’ to put themselves at Eumenes disposal, by the orders of the Kings.[Diod XVIII.58.1ff]. He takes them off to Phoenicia and then East in the long retreat from Antigonus that ends in the choking dust of Gabiene, over a year later in early 316 BC. Ironically this took place roughly250 km EAST of where they had started in Susa!

It is interesting to note that you see recalled from their hearths as "exaggerated hyperpoble" whereas you take Justin's claim the Argyraspides refused service under any other general (demonstrably untrue) as absolute fact. Even though Justin is the single source to even mention such.

Considering they had marched to India via Egypt and back, perhaps they could be forgiven for considering Cilicia practically ‘home’, despite it being over 1,500 km or so away from Macedon!

As to their refusal to serve as Guards to anyone after Alexander, you overlook the circumstantial evidence which is entirely consistent with Justin – the disappearance of the Agema, the detachment to Susa to serve as ‘ordinary’ line troops, ditto their service under Eumenes, who has to form his own Guard/Hypaspists, who in fact take precedence over the ‘Silver Shields’....etc.

Xenophon wrote:We must agree to differ then.....I have previously explained why on balance of probability, the 4,000 veterans were left in Cilicia ( and see Agesilaos quote of Heckel Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:30 pm, where he explains in an aside, his reasoning. This quote raises another point. If Cleitus raised a fleet in Cilicia, where did his marines come from? At full complement [40 per ship] they would have amounted to 9,600 heavy infantry and missile troops.....not to mention crews of 48,000 including 40,800 skilled rowers - not something to be found in abundance in Cilicia at that time. )

Heckel supposes that the Argyraspides were among those sent home from Opis. He argues that Perdikkas picked them up on his way to Egypt. Given that the Argyraspides are not noted amongst the troops of Neoptolemos or Alketas, this does not support Perdikkas picking them up on the way to Kappadokia. Further, Heckel supposes that Antigenes' unit sent back with Krateros from India "must have comprised hypaspists" (Marshals, 323). But the hypaspists are mentioned frequently after the departure of Antigenes.

This is a distraction – I agree with you that Heckel is wrong in this respect, as I have already said, I believe.....
The whole idea that Craterus was building Alexander’s proposed fleet in Cilicia is nowhere even hinted at in our sources. It is a modern postulation by some scholar or another, who is clueless about ancient ship-building, as has been demonstrated. It is pure supposition based on [Diod XVIII.4.4] and the co-incidence that Craterus happened to be in Cilicia with the veterans.

Xenophon wrote:Only because it conveniently suits your purpose, despite its obvious flaws in the Abstract ! Nor do the works overlap; the ten year gap is not at all relevant. You are comparing apples and pears....

And there is no self interest in your Prandi-like dismissal of the archaeology. Your hope that the findings are Roman is palpable.

Here we go again ! The usual false claim and old canard that I ‘dismiss’ something, when clearly I do not. We haven’t seen the archaeological report yet, and I have already said I am curious to do so. I don’t “hope” anything, pending sight of the report – but the existing archaeology is Roman and later, as has been referred to.
In any event, if the slipways do prove to be 4 C, it adds nothing . The whole thing is a crock. Slipways/shipsheds were for storing ships ashore, away from ‘Teredo’ worms and the like. They were not for construction of ships, and could not be so used, as I have demonstrated. The ships that used those slipways, from whatever period, could have been built anywhere, with Phoenicia being a likely guess.

Xenophon wrote:The point is that there are no traces of archaeology that date before Roman Imperial times, apparently.

"Apparently". Whence has departed the certainly? The hope continues.

See above. ‘Apparently’ is there as a note of caution.

Xenophon wrote:

Paralus wrote:I cannot see this as being correct at all. That Polyperchon traveled back with Krateros is clear; that Kleitos did is unlikely in the extreme and a stretch.

Why do you say this when we are specifically told he did? And if, as you would wish, he took over a fleet built by Craterus in Cilicia, then he must have been with Craterus.

I'd be interested in the specific source attestation stating that Kleitos returned to Greece with Krateros. I can find none.

I’m afraid you are rather mixed up here – see below.

Xenophon wrote:

Paralus wrote:It is not possible that Kleitos returned to Maceodonia with Krateros and sailed back east to defeat an Athenian naval force late in the archonship of Kephisodoros (323-322).

That is not what I am suggesting. There’s no reason he could not have returned with Polyperchon, or at the same time as he did, well before Craterus and his troops cross, and taken command of the Macedonian fleet in Macedonia.

This line of argument passes my comprehension. You are suggesting that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia "well before" Krateros and that Kleitos returned with him?! Perhaps the pair returned with Leonnatos? Just what source material states that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia before Krateros?

Cleitus is clearly in command of the Macedonian fleet in 322 BC [Diod XVIII.15.8], prior to Craterus crossing [Diod XVIII.16.4], remembering Craterus had some 1,500 km or so to march from Cilicia to Macedon. The situation with Polyperchon is less clear, and we are not directly told when he arrived in Macedon. There is no reason these two needed to stay with Craterus and the veterans, and clearly Cleitus for one did not. Both could have returned in the fleet of Alexander’s ships which convoyed treasure to Macedon prior to the Lamian war. These 110 triremes are recorded as accompanying Antipater at the outset of the Lamian war, [Diod:XVIII.12.2] and which must have been the core of the Macedonian fleet that Cleitus commanded the following year, prior to Craterus crossing. I make no claim to certainty in this regard, but believe this to be the most likely scenario.

Xenophon wrote:

Paralus wrote:The evidence we have is of Kleitos defeating an Athenian fleet, in June 322, at Amorges, west of Halicarnassos.

Only if one discounts the evidence of Diodorus, and relies instead on fragmentary clues in Plutarch...

It seems you have a very incomplete understanding of this as that statement and those below indicate. Diodorus indicates two battles, the second at the 'Echinades'. The first occurred of the Amorges Islands to the west of Halikarnassos:


Parium Marble, 239 B9:
From the war around Lamia which the Athenians fought against Antipater, and the sea battle which the Macedonians fought against the Athenians around Amorgos, which the Macedonians won, 59 years, when Cephisodorus was archon at Athens.

Plut. Dem. 11.4:
When the Athenians were defeated in the sea-fight near Amorgos, he arrived at Athens before any account of the misfortune had been received...

Plut. Mor. 238A:
Cleitus, when he had scuttled three or four Greek triremes at Amorgos, caused himself to be proclaimed Poseidon and carried a trident...


The battle was obviously fought and is the first of Diodorus' two battles. It took place in the archonship of Kephisodoros. It did not take place in the Ionian Sea.

These are the ‘fragmentary references’ I was referring to. What Diodorus says is:
“The affairs of the Greeks were thus in thriving condition, but since the Macedonians had command of the sea, the Athenians made ready other ships in addition to those which they already had, so that there were in all one hundred and seventy. Cleitus was in command of the Macedonian fleet, which numbered two hundred and forty. Engaging with the Athenian admiral Evetion he defeated him in two naval battles and destroyed a large number of the ships of the enemy near the islands that are called the Echinades.”

Which is quite contradictory to your above quoted fragments. Diodorus refers to two naval battles near the Echinades islands which are in the Ionian sea, and a large number of enemy ships destroyed. Plutarch refers to “three or four triremes” in an undoubtedly apochryphal moral anecdote.

Xenophon wrote:

Paralus wrote:Indeed, there is absolutely no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be in these waters at this time. What is eminently possible is that he sailed from Asia Minor (Kilikia) to assure Krateros' passage of the Hellespont and met the Athenian fleet which he defeated.

I would agree that it seems unlikely that the fleets were in the Ionian sea, off the West coast of Greece, but that is what Diodorus says.....
That Cleitus started from Cilicia is all but impossible for all the reasons I’ve given previously.

And this is what becomes of quoting one part of a paragraph. My point is that there was no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be off the Amorges late in the archonship of Kephisodoros. Nothing to do with the Ionian Sea.

You cannot reasonably make that statement. The sources for this naval campaign are obscure, as we have seen. Modern scholars down to Walek, Morrison and Bosworth, all puzzle to make sense of our fragmentary information and come up with different solutions.

Xenophon wrote:Diod XVIII.15.8 is quite clear [...] But an editorial note suggests:

“Diodorus has condensed his account of the naval campaign to the point of unintelligibility, although it was probably the decisive factor in the war. We cannot even be sure whether Diodorus intends to mention two sea battles or three. T. Walek (Revue de Philologie, 48 (1924), 23 ff.) reconstructs the campaign as follows. While part of the original Athenian fleet of 240 ships (chap. 10.2) blockaded the fleet of Antipater in the Malian Gulf, the rest held the Hellespont and for a time prevented Leonnatus from coming to the aid of Antipater. Although this fleet was increased to 170 ships, it was defeated in the spring of 322 by the larger fleet of Cleitus at Abydos (cp. Inscriptiones Graecae, editio minor, 2.298 and 493). Cleitus then crossed the Aegean and defeated the other Athenian fleet with great loss at the Lichades Islands in the Malian Gulf (see critical note), and at once removed to Amorgos for the final battle (Plutarch, Demetrius, 11.3; Marmor Parium for 323/2), which ended Athenian sea power forever. It is hard to see how any battle of this war could have taken place near the Echinades (off the west coast of Acarnania), but this name may conceal a reference to Echinus on the north shore of the Malian Gulf.”

In fact as all modern commentators agree - your own certainty here excepted - Diodorus is anything but "quite clear". There is no evidence that Kleitos was ever at Abydos - either inscriptional or literary. The inscriptions referred to do not name Kleitos even though they refer to the sea battle off Abydos. If Kleitos was to fight a sea battle off Abydos it would be to secure the crossing of Macedonian troops. These would necessarily be those of Krateros unless you wish to suggest that Polyperchon and Kleitos returned to Maceodonia over the winter of 323/22 so as to have Kleitos sail to Abydos in spring of 322, with Antipatros' 110 ships, to aid Leonnatos. He would then sail south later in the archon year, with Krateros moving north to the Hellespont, to engage an Athenian fleet off the Amorges where he suddenly has 240 ships?

I believe I have made clear that certainty is not possible.
Your latter suggestion is possible – I don’t care to speculate, since others have and nothing conclusive has emerged.

Diodorus [XVIII.10.2] and Justin[XIII.5.8] record the Athenians intending to expand their fleet to around 200 ships, although they may have fallen short for at ‘Echinades’ they seem to have had 170 in total after expansion [Diod XVIII.15.8] though some may have been detached on service elsewhere. The Macedonians will have similarly expanded their fleet.

[Xenophon]

Post by agesilaos » Wed Dec 16, 2015 3:50 pm

i feel disinclined to engaged with your further adventures in imagination and folly.

Xenophon wrote: Well, that didn't last long did it ! For a moment I had some hopes that you meant what you said.

Better get your concise OED out again and look up what it means ‘to feel disinclined’, though it might be simpler to ask a ten year old.

Your stated intent is clear and obvious....

Xenophon wrote: Why? Reverse the order and put my consideration of the Greek translation first, it makes no difference to the argument, and can't be 'safely ignored'.

Half right; it makes no difference to the’argument because that has fallen from a bovine behind whichever way you look at it, for the reasons given; but like most of your ventures into language ‘it can be safely ignored’. Like your further bogus point; Paralus has suggested a finer translation you have asserted that the old one is better, backed up by…tradition…??? But then Herodotos is the Fathers of Lies, and presumably the contemporary Aischylos too he gives 1207 ships’ Persae,


Messenger

If numbers had been the only factor, be assured that the barbarians would have gained the victory with their fleet. For the whole number of the ships of Hellas amounted to ten times thirty, [340] and, in addition to these, there was a chosen squadron of ten. But Xerxes, this I know, had under his command a thousand, while those excelling in speed were twice a hundred, and seven more. This is the total of their respective numbers.

Paralus’ translation is out of context, and I have stated why.One can't 'appoint' non-existent ship construction facilities to build anything.
All that your quotation shows is that Aeschylus and Herdotus used a common source or followed a common tradition. Many commentators have pointed out why Xerxes fleet could not have been so large, and it would be folly to believe, as you argue here, that the number is correct.

As for your edited quote

Xenophon wrote:I cut it because it is misleading in that its figures relate to the Persian Wars and after, which is not the period under consideration

Athenian ship production was of course much higher during the glory days of its Empire and especially during the Themistoklean surge; I thought you knew about naval matters???

Read again. The matter under discussion was why I left out a sentence relating to costs. Nothing to do with ship production numbers, which in any event can’t be compared, Cilicia and Athens being worlds apart.

I thought you claimed to read and understand English ?

I will not do your research for you, you find some evidence rather than simply assert; the forth going amply demonstrates your lack of command of sources, languages, argument and honesty.

Nor would I trust any ‘research’ you come up with, without checking it. Your ‘research’ is tailored to suit your convictions in advance. Your latter statement is simply offensive and obviously untrue.

The coin of Mallos remains as bogus as your lame excuse for posting it, it cannot be Orontes II and is bogus. The only source you have let slip is Wiki and you admitted yourself you only consulted ‘one numismatic source’ – not a way I would describe Wikipedia but then par for the course in the world of your source management.

The coin, whether gold or silver, is not ‘bogus’ but real, as you have acknowledged several times now. I have referenced several sites where that same coin is is shown as gold and attributed to Orontes II ( correctly or otherwise - and I am now inclined to believe it should in fact be silver, which colour it should be is rather here nor there) Whether the portrait of the Satrap is Orontes II is not now certain, as I have acknowledged. But one certainly can't rule out it being Orontes II, even probably being Orontes II. It won't do to bluntly say "..it can't be Orontes II" and give no reasons, no evidence in support. For my money the strong resemblance in type to similar coins of Orontes I ( with him facing left) which don’t seem to have alternate attributions ( and no, I am not trawling the entire internet over such a trivial point) means the two portraits are clearly related, and that points to Father and son, or at least a relationship. (see below)

How much more excrement would you have thrown out to obfuscate your folly had you not finally responded to the goad? This took two days; you really must stop thinking that people who do have a grip on the material, rather than a few Osprey books can be fooled by such a charade. It is not name calling when the name fits, that is ‘classification’, look that one up as well.

That’s twice in this post you have sunk to the depths of referring to my posts as faecal matter. You can’t really get any lower, can you?
In my experience, when a person reverts to such things, along with continual abuse and name calling, it is a sure sign they have lost the argument, or more charitably perhaps, be an unfortunate sufferer from Tourette’s syndrome (a.k.a coprolalia or ‘potty mouth’.) I will respond to a couple of other matters, and then I’m finished.

Congratulations on driving me off yet another thread!

edited to correct typos

[Paralus]

More ‘loose’ and incorrect use of terminology, I’m afraid. When Antigenes received the plum Satrapy of Susiane as his reward for his part in the murder of Perdiccas at Triparadeisos in 321 BC [Diod. XVIII.39.2], he needed troops, and he received his own ‘Silver Shields’( now no longer Royal Guards after the death of Alexander. ) to guard treasure, garrison Susa and provide him with troops. That is not ‘dismissed’ in anyone’s language. In military terms it is called ‘detached service’ – a far more accurate term. Subsequently in318 BC Antigenes and the ‘Silver Shields’ were sent home to be disbanded/retire there, and were given the task of convoying treasure to Macedon. They got as far as Cilicia – a long way from Macedon – when they were‘re-tasked’ to put themselves at Eumenes disposal, by the orders of the Kings.[Diod XVIII.58.1ff].

The Argyraspides were clearly dismissed from the royal army at Triparadeisos, which army was then tasked to defeat the surviving 'Perdikkans'. Nothing states that the Argyrapsides were given the task of transporting treasure from Susa to Macedon. In fact the only reference to this (Arrian, Succ. 1.38) states they were to convey Susa's treasure "to the sea". At the time Eumenes meets them they are Kyinda in Kilikia. The most likely view is that these treasures were to go to Kyinda. Whatever they did or did not convey, there was a vast amount in Susa for Antigonos to purloin in 316. There also had to be an enormous amount at Kyinda given that, after all the depredations upon it, Antigonos nicked 10,000 talents from it in 315.

Cleitus is clearly in command of the Macedonian fleet in 322 BC [Diod XVIII.15.8], prior to Craterus crossing [Diod XVIII.16.4], remembering Craterus had some 1,500 km or so to march from Cilicia to Macedon. The situation with Polyperchon is less clear, and we are not directly told when he arrived in Macedon. There is no reason these two needed to stay with Craterus and the veterans, and clearly Cleitus for one did not. Both could have returned in the fleet of Alexander’s ships which convoyed treasure to Macedon prior to the Lamian war. These 110 triremes are recorded as accompanying Antipater at the outset of the Lamian war, [Diod:XVIII.12.2] and which must have been the core of the Macedonian fleet that Cleitus commanded the following year, prior to Craterus crossing. I make no claim to certainty in this regard, but believe this to be the most likely scenario.

This is little more than supposition. No evidence whatsoever exists for Polyperchon returning to Macedonia in 323. The claim that this pair returned with the 110 strong fleet which conveyed moneys to Macedonia smacks of desperation. Alexander had sent Polyperchon with Krateros as his second in command specifically because Krateros was ill (Arr. Anab. 7.12.4). Had Krateros not made it to Macedonia, Polyperchon will have replaced Krateros both as commander and viceroy of Greece. Diodorus (18.12.2) only states that Antipatros left for Greece with the 110 ships which Alexander had sent. These ships can have arrived at any time and nothing states that they arrived just prior to the Lamian war. No source states that Polyperchon was commanded by Alexander to leave his post as second in command and travel with the treasure carrying fleet. Polyperchon's place was with Krateros and we next hear of him assuming the command of Europe while Antipatros and Krateros deal with the Perdikkas. That Polyperchon betook himself to Macedonia "well before" Krateros is more than highly improbable.

These are the ‘fragmentary references’ I was referring to. What Diodorus says is:
“The affairs of the Greeks were thus in thriving condition, but since the Macedonians had command of the sea, the Athenians made ready other ships in addition to those which they already had, so that there were in all one hundred and seventy. Cleitus was in command of the Macedonian fleet, which numbered two hundred and forty. Engaging with the Athenian admiral Evetion he defeated him in two naval battles and destroyed a large number of the ships of the enemy near the islands that are called the Echinades.”

Which is quite contradictory to your above quoted fragments. Diodorus refers to two naval battles near the Echinades islands which are in the Ionian sea, and a large number of enemy ships destroyed. Plutarch refers to “three or four triremes” in an undoubtedly apochryphal moral anecdote.

This is an absolutely false dichotomy. Contra your incorrect that statement that "Diodorus is quite clear", he is anything but as all scholars dealing with this passage agree. Diodorus has contracted these three naval battles (Abydos, Amorgos and "Echinades") to near incomprehensibility. You dismiss the fact of a naval battle off the Amorgos using the term "fragments" to underscore your view. You would seem to be in a minority of one here. There clearly was a battle off the Amorgos as the evidence shows. The Marmour Parium may have chronological inconsistencies but there is no reason for this battle to be somehow invented. It was the last battle of 323/2 and it happened in the eastern Aegean. I would suggest you read some of the literature on this (the most recent treatment is in The Age of The Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic States, [Studia Hellenistica, 2014, Hauben & Meeus eds] I believe, from which you referenced Michael Rathman on the "Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis" thread). Clear source testimony cannot be so dismissed simply because it is uncomfortable.

You cannot reasonably make that statement. The sources for this naval campaign are obscure, as we have seen. Modern scholars down to Walek, Morrison and Bosworth, all puzzle to make sense of our fragmentary information and come up with different solutions.

Yet you proclaim that this battle never occurred using language such as "fragmentary information" to marginalise and dismiss it. Again, if Diodorus "is quite clear", why all the words of the scholars you name (and many more besides) on this passage? Because it is anything but "quite clear". The evidence of the Marmour Parium baldly states that the Macedonians defeated an Athenian fleet at the close of 323/2 off Amorgos. The other evidence you so wish to disparage support that source.

[Xenophon]

Paralus wrote:

More ‘loose’ and incorrect use of terminology, I’m afraid. When Antigenes received the plum Satrapy of Susiane as his reward for his part in the murder of Perdiccas at Triparadeisos in 321 BC [Diod. XVIII.39.2], he needed troops, and he received his own ‘Silver Shields’( now no longer Royal Guards after the death of Alexander. ) to guard treasure, garrison Susa and provide him with troops. That is not ‘dismissed’ in anyone’s language. In military terms it is called ‘detached service’ – a far more accurate term. Subsequently in318 BC Antigenes and the ‘Silver Shields’ were sent home to be disbanded/retire there, and were given the task of convoying treasure to Macedon. They got as far as Cilicia – a long way from Macedon – when they were‘re-tasked’ to put themselves at Eumenes disposal, by the orders of the Kings.[Diod XVIII.58.1ff].

The Argyraspides were clearly dismissed from the royal army at Triparadeisos, which army was then tasked to defeat the surviving 'Perdikkans'.

Oh no you don't! 'dismissed' is totally incorrect, as I have explained and you well know. Now you are just being perverse.

Nothing states that the Argyrapsides were given the task of transporting treasure from Susa to Macedon. In fact the only reference to this (Arrian, Succ. 1.38) states they were to convey Susa's treasure "to the sea". At the time Eumenes meets them they are Kyinda in Kilikia. The most likely view is that these treasures were to go to Kyinda. Whatever they did or did not convey, there was a vast amount in Susa for Antigonos to purloin in 316. There also had to be an enormous amount at Kyinda given that, after all the depredations upon it, Antigonos nicked 10,000 talents from it in 315.

Fine. If it is an error it is a trivial one. But I didn't say 'transport' treasure, I said 'guard' treasure by which I meant the treasure stored at Susa in vast amounts, even after Alexander removed substantial quantities. ( another 'straw man')

Cleitus is clearly in command of the Macedonian fleet in 322 BC [Diod XVIII.15.8], prior to Craterus crossing [Diod XVIII.16.4], remembering Craterus had some 1,500 km or so to march from Cilicia to Macedon. The situation with Polyperchon is less clear, and we are not directly told when he arrived in Macedon. There is no reason these two needed to stay with Craterus and the veterans, and clearly Cleitus for one did not. Both could have returned in the fleet of Alexander’s ships which convoyed treasure to Macedon prior to the Lamian war. These 110 triremes are recorded as accompanying Antipater at the outset of the Lamian war, [Diod:XVIII.12.2] and which must have been the core of the Macedonian fleet that Cleitus commanded the following year, prior to Craterus crossing. I make no claim to certainty in this regard, but believe this to be the most likely scenario.

This is little more than supposition. No evidence whatsoever exists for Polyperchon returning to Macedonia in 323. The claim that this pair returned with the 110 strong fleet which conveyed moneys to Macedonia smacks of desperation. Alexander had sent Polyperchon with Krateros as his second in command specifically because Krateros was ill (Arr. Anab. 7.12.4). Had Krateros not made it to Macedonia, Polyperchon will have replaced Krateros both as commander and viceroy of Greece. Diodorus (18.12.2) only states that Antipatros left for Greece with the 110 ships which Alexander had sent. These ships can have arrived at any time and nothing states that they arrived just prior to the Lamian war.

I didn't say there was. I simply put forward a possibility, and perhaps Polyperchon did not cross until Craterus and the troops did. Since the sources are silent on the subject, we cannot know, I agree.
I wrote:

Cleitus is clearly in command of the Macedonian fleet in 322 BC [Diod XVIII.15.8], prior to Craterus crossing [Diod XVIII.16.4], remembering Craterus had some 1,500 km or so to march from Cilicia to Macedon. The situation with Polyperchon is less clear, and we are not directly told when he arrived in Macedon. There is no reason these two needed to stay with Craterus and the veterans, and clearly Cleitus for one did not. Both could have returned in the fleet of Alexander’s ships which convoyed treasure to Macedon prior to the Lamian war. These 110 triremes are recorded as accompanying Antipater at the outset of the Lamian war, [Diod:XVIII.12.2] and which must have been the core of the Macedonian fleet that Cleitus commanded the following year, prior to Craterus crossing. I make no claim to certainty in this regard, but believe this to be the most likely scenario.

Obviously, we don't know when Alexander's treasure fleet arrived in Macedon, other than that it was before the Lamian war....

No source states that Polyperchon was commanded by Alexander to leave his post as second in command and travel with the treasure carrying fleet. Polyperchon's place was with Krateros and we next hear of him assuming the command of Europe while Antipatros and Krateros deal with the Perdikkas. That Polyperchon betook himself to Macedonia "well before" Krateros is more than highly improbable.

Again not something you can say with any certainty whatsoever. Once Alexander was dead, all bets were off. Polyperchon had ambitions of his own. Another possibility is that with Alexander dead, Craterus sent him to liase with Antipater. There are any number of possibilities, and the least likely is that with Alexander dead and everything in crisis, Polyperchon waited around twiddling his thumbs.

These are the ‘fragmentary references’ I was referring to. What Diodorus says is:
“The affairs of the Greeks were thus in thriving condition, but since the Macedonians had command of the sea, the Athenians made ready other ships in addition to those which they already had, so that there were in all one hundred and seventy. Cleitus was in command of the Macedonian fleet, which numbered two hundred and forty. Engaging with the Athenian admiral Evetion he defeated him in two naval battles and destroyed a large number of the ships of the enemy near the islands that are called the Echinades.”

Which is quite contradictory to your above quoted fragments. Diodorus refers to two naval battles near the Echinades islands which are in the Ionian sea, and a large number of enemy ships destroyed. Plutarch refers to “three or four triremes” in an undoubtedly apochryphal moral anecdote.

This is an absolutely false dichotomy. Contra your incorrect that statement that "Diodorus is quite clear", he is anything but as all scholars dealing with this passage agree.

His words are indeed clear, if lacking in any detail, as anyone reading my quote can see. And they are not consistent with the fragments you quoted. May I point out that I have already agreed with you that a naval campaign in the Aegean is more plausible than one in the Ionian sea?

Diodorus has contracted these three naval battles (Abydos, Amorgos and "Echinades") to near incomprehensibility. You dismiss the fact of a naval battle off the Amorgos using the term "fragments" to underscore your view.

Here we go again ! I NEVER dismiss anything !!!!! It is not certain that 3 battles took place - nothing in the sources, literary or inscription says "three" as can be seen from our combined quotes. Other than 'fragments', how else would you describe partial inscriptions and a couple of brief sentences in Plutarch? One could also describe Diodorus' information as fragmentary also. Obviously a clear account didn't survive to be drawn on. And DON'T be trying to tell me what "my view" is. I've stated plainly that there is so little information, I won't even speculate on the Naval campaign.

You would seem to be in a minority of one here. There clearly was a battle off the Amorgos as the evidence shows. The Marmour Parium may have chronological inconsistencies but there is no reason for this battle to be somehow invented. It was the last battle of 323/2 and it happened in the eastern Aegean. I would suggest you read some of the literature on this (the most recent treatment is in The Age of The Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic States, [Studia Hellenistica, 2014, Hauben & Meeus eds] I believe, from which you referenced Michael Rathman on the "Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis" thread). Clear source testimony cannot be so dismissed simply because it is uncomfortable.

If there was 'clear' testimony, we wouldn't have almost as many opinions on what occurred as there are scholars. The above statement is patently untrue. I'm not in a minority of anything - my views are neutral on the matter. For the 'Nth' time "clear source testimony" is NOT being 'dismissed'.

You cannot reasonably make that statement. The sources for this naval campaign are obscure, as we have seen. Modern scholars down to Walek, Morrison and Bosworth, all puzzle to make sense of our fragmentary information and come up with different solutions.

Yet you proclaim that this battle never occurred using language such as "fragmentary information" to marginalise and dismiss it. Again, if Diodorus "is quite clear", why all the words of the scholars you name (and many more besides) on this passage? Because it is anything but "quite clear". The evidence of the Marmour Parium baldly states that the Macedonians defeated an Athenian fleet at the close of 323/2 off Amorgos. The other evidence you so wish to disparage support that source.

I'm sorry, where did I say that any of the battles referred to didn't take place? Idon't know whether 1,2, or 3, did, and as I said I don't care to speculate.I don't 'disparage' anything either. I already made the point that lack of information has led to an abundance of scholarly speculation. This technique of yours of attempting to put words in my mouth is annoying to say the least, and you are constantly guilty of it. Constantly using the fallacy of 'Straw Man' arguments. Diodorus actual words are indeed clear to understand, but as I've pointed out, they are inconsistent with the fragments you quoted, hence all the scholarly differences of opinion over what may have happened.

And please make a conscious effort to avoid the frequent and inaccurate use of the word 'dismiss' whether in connection with the Argyraspides or my use of sources.

Alas, I won't be saying any more about matters naval, since apart from a few odds and ends I won't be posting any further on this thread.(see previous response to Agesilaos)

edited to clarify Silver Shields role in guarding treasure.

[Paralus]

Fine. If it is an error it is a trivial one.

And not the only one: trivial or otherwise.

I didn't say there was. I simply put forward a possibility, and perhaps Polyperchon did not cross until Craterus and the troops did. Since the sources are silent on the subject, we cannot know, I agree.

You do love the phrase "we cannot know". It is your crutch for many things. We do know that Polyperchon was appointed Krateros' second in command and so to take his role in the event of his death. That Alexander would then send him with the treasure carrying fleet is not at all likely. The natural reading of our sources is that he accompanied Krateros and his column to Macedonia as planned. To argue otherwise would require substantiating evidence of which you've produced none. Other than your speculation of his unattested ambitions of course.

No source states that Polyperchon was commanded by Alexander to leave his post as second in command and travel with the treasure carrying fleet. Polyperchon's place was with Krateros and we next hear of him assuming the command of Europe while Antipatros and Krateros deal with the Perdikkas. That Polyperchon betook himself to Macedonia "well before" Krateros is more than highly improbable.

Again not something you can say with any certainty whatsoever. Once Alexander was dead, all bets were off. Polyperchon had ambitions of his own. Another possibility is that with Alexander dead, Craterus sent him to liase with Antipater. There are any number of possibilities, and the least likely is that with Alexander dead and everything in crisis, Polyperchon waited around twiddling his thumbs.

That's the best you have? The world is replete with possibilities? You would argue (on another thread) that Philip III did not go to Athens with Polyperchon because no source has him there. Here you would argue that Polyperchon went to Macedonia in 323, even though no source has him there but because no source says he wasn't there. Spectacular method. The facts are that Polyperchon was Krateros' deputy and went to Kilikia with him. He is next attested in Macedonia after Krateros arrived there. It is far preferable to stick with the sources than your Disney World of "possibilities".

His words are indeed clear, if lacking in any detail, as anyone reading my quote can see. And they are not consistent with the fragments you quoted.

Hardly. Your continued intransigence and deprication of the evidence on this is difficult to understand. The many, many scholarly articles discuss his ambiguous and unclear Greek. But you seem oblivious to this. As I indicated above, perhaps you should read the chapter in the book from which you reference Rathman.

Diodorus has contracted these three naval battles (Abydos, Amorgos and "Echinades") to near incomprehensibility. You dismiss the fact of a naval battle off the Amorgos using the term "fragments" to underscore your view.

Here we go again ! I NEVER dismiss anything !!!!! It is not certain that 3 battles took place - nothing in the sources, literary or inscription says "three" as can be seen from our combined quotes. Other than 'fragments', how else would you describe partial inscriptions and a couple of brief sentences in Plutarch? One could also describe Diodorus' information as fragmentary also. Obviously a clear account didn't survive to be drawn on. And DON'T be trying to tell me what "my view" is. I've stated plainly that there is so little information, I won't even speculate on the Naval campaign.

Of course you have. Confected outrage aside, you have denied that any battle occurred off the Amorgos Islands west of Halikarnossaos because it is "inconsistent" with the "quite clear" text of Diodorus. Claiming that you won't form an opinion of the naval battles of 322 because "there is so little information" but denying that Amorgos happened is something of an oxymoron.

You would seem to be in a minority of one here. There clearly was a battle off the Amorgos as the evidence shows. The Marmour Parium may have chronological inconsistencies but there is no reason for this battle to be somehow invented. It was the last battle of 323/2 and it happened in the eastern Aegean [...] Clear source testimony cannot be so dismissed simply because it is uncomfortable.

If there was 'clear' testimony, we wouldn't have almost as many opinions on what occurred as there are scholars. The above statement is patently untrue. I'm not in a minority of anything - my views are neutral on the matter. For the 'Nth' time "clear source testimony" is NOT being 'dismissed'.

I see. So now the Marmour Parium is being maginalised as one of your "fragments" or "partial inscriptions"? That it is cut into stone renders it somehow less valuable that Diodorous' ambiguous Greek? This is desperate stuff.

I'm sorry, where did I say that any of the battles referred to didn't take place? Idon't know whether 1,2, or 3, did, and as I said I don't care to speculate.I don't 'disparage' anything either. I already made the point that lack of information has led to an abundance of scholarly speculation.

Where have you ever agreed that a battle took place off the Amorgos islands?

Your obfuscation knows no bounds.It is not "lack of information"; it is Diodorus' capricious summarising reducing Abydos, Amorgos and "Echinades" to a couple of sentences that has "led to an abundance of scholarly speculation". There is information but you set it aside (cannot say dismiss!) with the clear implication it is all untrustworthy. None so blind.

And DON'T be trying to tell me what "my view" is. I've stated plainly that there is so little information, I won't even speculate on the Naval campaign.

What you have is unevidenced speculation - particularly with respect to Polypechon and Kleitos.As for the naval campaign, while you supposedly won't speculate, you dismiss my view. I suppose that is not speculating though.

[agesilaos]

μετὰ δὲ τούτους ἐτάχθησαν οἱ Μακεδόνες ἀργυράσπιδες, ὄντες μὲν πλείους τρισχιλίων, ἀνίκητοι δὲ καὶ διὰ τὰςἀρετὰς πολὺν φόβον παρεχόμενοι τοῖς πολεμίοις. ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ὄντας πλείους τρισχιλίων, ἀφηγουμένου τούτων τε ἅμα καὶ τῶν ἀργυρασπίδων Ἀντιγένους καὶ Τευτάμου.
Diod. XIX.28.1

Time to address this issue, we have been continually told that Eumenes had to raise his own hypaspists by someone prone to categorising his betters as ’certain classicists’ and the like (especially ironic since had read enough of the ones he dismisses he might have discovered that they supported the construct he favours of a population weak Macedon in the Diadochic period), and that the Silver Shields conceded the place of honour to them.

No sources actually mentions these ‘hypaspists’ being ‘raised’, they appear fully formed at the battle of Paraitekene, 3,000 strong on the right wing but under the command of Antigenes and Teutamos (quote at head of post). Before making the linguistic point, pause for groans, let us consider the circumstances, as the sources relate them.

Diodoros tells us that Eumenes left Nora and gathered 500 horse and 2,000 foot from his former army (including 500 from those at Nora), his recruiting drive then raised a further 10,000 foot and 2,000 horse besides the Argyrapides (XVIII 59). We can discount the Argyrapides as they are listed separately from the ‘Hypaspists’, similarly the horse can be set aside which leaves the 2,000 foot who joined in Kappadokia, or the 10,000 mercenaries upon which he could draw for these new ‘hypaspists’.

It is possible that the Macedonian guard that had volunteered during the winter of 320/19 following Antigonos’ issue of a bounty had reconstituted; but one would have to posit an error in the figures as they were only 1,000 strong. At Gabiene both units seem to have opposed Antigonos’ 8,000 Macedonians so a combined total of 6,000 is probably sounder than one of 4,000. Mercenaries would be unlikely to stand up to the Macedonians of Antigonos and the Argyraspids unlikely to trust their flank to them (whether the right as a position of honour was still a consideration is a moot point).

The solution is, as so often in the Greek; Diodoros does not say ‘3,000 of the hypaspists’ ἐκ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν τρισχιλίων which is the construction seen in Arrian, for instance but ἐπὶ πᾶσι δὲ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν ὑπασπιστῶν ‘Out of all of the hypaspists’- and there is the clue, we have already seen that the satraps had personal guards called ‘hypaspists’ in imitation of the Royal Hypaspists. It makes more sense to me that this body was composed of the Macedonian guards of the satraps of the Upper Satrapies, they were combined with the Argyraspides so must surely have also been Macedonian and there is no other source for Macedonians in the army; it also explains the lack of their voice in the various command disputes, unlike the Argyraspides they were not a solid bloc, but they were troops that would be used in a battle (despite, in all probability not fitting some theoretical unit sizes). The right hand post was less important in pike phalanxes as the drive for the hoplite’s rightward drift did not exist; no pikeman could seek shelter behind the shield of his right-hand neighbour, their shields did not protect their neighbour, their pike did.

Politically the amalgam of the satraps’ individual guards under the command of Eumenes’ main supports (but still acceptably Macedonian and experienced) suits both the history of Eumenes’ recruitment and the practicalities of the Coalition.

[agesilaos]

Xenophon, you have succeeded in demonstrating that you have remained steadfastly in the playground, on this thread; occasioned by your certainty that something was impossible – Polyperchon’s 20,000, I will remind people.

You entered with a protracted whinge, after three months, now edited to less offensive status by the moderator you accused of being involved in a massive conspiracy against you (readers I kid you not) and now you ask the readership to believe that the man who relishes in the hanging of another is perturbed by the news that the crap he has been posting, being snide asides, unevidenced assertions and bogus distress all along. You have flounced out because you have been caught out for the braggard and fraud you are.

And why because you have not got the intellectual honesty to admit that you mistakenly took Wiki at its word and have dug yourself into the midden further with every post. But that certainly was not your first lie, there is the farce of the list of authorities taken from Bosworth’s footnote, nor the continual listing of authors you have not read; Cook contains a real doobie for you, though indecisive for the argument.

Hopefully I do not have to point out the full array of sophistry and rhetoric that have been deployed to disguise the total want of substance in any of your ‘blunts’, I cannot bring myself to call them ‘points’.

The fact that you petulantly wanted this to intrude into a chronological discussion speaks volunes about your judgement (and it did not take Sherlock Holmes to predict how this would go – although I confess to being surprised at the degree of fiction you will still support – your irrational clinging to the false Orontes II coin is worthy of Taphoi’s faith in Olympias being the occupant of the Kastas tomb, apologies, Taphoi actually has the sounder case).

You are flouncing because you created a bogus case for rebellion throughout Asia Minor to support a flawed theory from Hammond and refused to let it go and have made an arse of yourself in continuing to defend it; those who will not change their mind will never learn.

I suggest that you take the Xmas break to research a naval contribution; you have continually asserted that there were no permanent dockyards, that triereis etc were built on beaches and not in ship sheds; unevidenced, find the ancient literary or archaeological evidence for these and provide references and preferably links thereto; that would not only be interesting but useful and informative. Demonstrate some expertise, just claiming it or others inexpertise will not wash.

Do post your choices on the frivolous Xmas thread though, even if one might be my head in a basket!

Festive Greetings, but I hope you do not get all for which you wish

[Paralus]

That's an interesting explanation for Eumenes' hypaspists. Although the numbers are internally inconsistent Diodorus lists the forces assembled by the satraps (19.14.5-8):

At this time Peucestes had ten thousand Persian archers and slingers, three thousand men of every origin equipped for service in the Macedonian array, six hundred Greek and Thracian cavalry, and more than four hundred Persian horsemen. 6 Tlepolemus the Macedonian, who had been appointed satrap of Carmania, had one thousand five hundred foot soldiers and seven hundred mounted men. Sibyrtius, the commander of Arachosia, brought a thousand foot and six hundred and ten horse. Androbazus had been dispatched from Paropanisadae, of which satrapy Oxyartes was governor, with twelve hundred infantry and four hundred cavalry. 7 Stasander, the satrap of Aria and Dranginê, who brought also the troops from Bactrianê, had fifteen hundred infantry and a thousand horse. 8 From India came Eudamus with five hundred horsemen, three hundred footmen, and one hundred and twenty elephants. These beasts he had secured after the death of Alexander by treacherously slaying King Porus.In all there were assembled with the satraps more than eighteen thousand seven hundred infantry and four thousand six hundred cavalry.

Those in bold are the Macedonian satraps who might have brought their Macedonian guards with them.They add up to 4,300. Caution is needed tough because in this list we only have 3,000 epigoni (or pantodopoi) whereas 5,000 are present at Paraitakene. What Diodorus does not say (and one might expect him to) is that the infantry are Macedonian or a component is Macedonian (and it would need to be most). Also, the only Macedonian infantry in the battle line up are the Argyraspides and possibly the hypaspists. There is no room for any more (other than cavalry). The next passage to shed some light is the feast in Persis (19.22.2-3):

With the company of those participating he filled four circles, one within the other, with the largest circle inclosing the others. The circuit of the outer ring was of ten stades and was filled with the mercenaries and the mass of the allies; the circuit of the second was of eight stades, and in it were the Macedonian Silver Shields and those of the Companions who had fought under Alexander; the circuit of the next was of four stades and its area was filled with reclining men — the commanders of lower rank, the friends and generals who were unassigned, and the cavalry; lastly in the inner circle with a perimeter of two stades each of the generals and hipparchs and also each of the Persians who was most highly honoured occupied his own couch. 3 In the middle of these there were altars for the gods and for Alexander and Philip.

First thing to note here is that there is no seating for Hammond's "sons of the hypaspists". There is a circle comprising the Argyraspides and "those of the Companions (ἑταίρων) who had fought under Alexander". Now, these are not "Companion cavalry" for the cavalry has its own ring. They must, then, be pezhetairoi. We are not given a number though and, if Eumenes had made these men hypaspists, why does Diodorus (or his source) not refer to them as such? Further, there is, as remarked, no room in Eumenes' full order of battler given for both battles (Paraitakene and Gabiene) for Macedonian infantry outside of these hypaspists. It is something of a rare coincidence that "the Companions who had fought under Alexander" precisely number the same as Alexander's hypaspists, the Argyraspides. Also, these satraps were clearly going to return to their satrapies along with their troops. Does it not seem odd that Eumenes would promote these disparate satrapal guards to hypaspists only to then have them all go their separate ways? Lastly there is the belief held by some that hypaspists were hoplite armed (something I do not hold to by the way). These 3,000 can only be pezhetairoi (quote above) and so would have to be rearmed were that the case.

I've always found Bosworth's suggestion that these 3,000 were the best of the epigoni attractive as Xenophon has noted repeatedly. The only stumbling block is the 5,000 number of these troops. As I say though, we are only told of 3,000 in the satrapal forces. We do not know what Eumenes brought with him (at least 2,000) and they may have been among those he marched from Phoinikia with after his recruitment drive.

[agesilaos]

Peukestas -13,000 foot; 1,000+ horse
Tlepolemos – 1,500 foot; 700 horse
Sibyrtius – 1,000 foot; 610 horse
Androbazos – 1,200 foot; 400 horse
Stasandros – 1,500 foot; 1,000 horse
Eudamos – 300 foot; 500 horse; 120 elephants
Total given; 18,700+ foot ; 4,600 cav
By addition 18,500; 4,210+ cav

Eumenes – 10,000 mercs, 2,000 foot 2,500 horse 3,000 argyraspides
Total – 15,000 foot, 2,500 horse
TOTAL – 33, 500 foot, 6,210 horse

Paraitakene 316
Eudamos – his 150 cav, 100 lancers
Stasandros – his 950 cav,
Amphimachos(Mesopotamia) – 600 horse
(Ex-Sibyrtios) Kephalon – 600 horse
Parapanisdai – 500 horse
Thracians – 500

6,000+ mercenaries
5,000 pantodapoi Mac fash
Argyraspides - 3,000+
Hypaspists - 3,000+ Antigenes and Teutamos

Tlepolemos – 800 cav
Companions – 900
Eile of Antigenes and Peukestas – 300 (compound unit)
Eumenes – 300 cav
Paides – 2 x 50 cav
Chosen men - 4x 50 cav
In addition to these, three hundred men selected from all the cavalry commands for swiftness and strength were stationed by Eumenes behind his own squadron.
35,000 foot 6,100 horse 114 els
Adds up to; 17,000 foot; 6,300 horse

There is a nice load of numbers to play with; the first thing to note is the only slight disparity in totals between that for Paraitekene (Diod XIX 28) and that gained by adding the individual totals for Eumenes’ army which left Phoenicia and that of the satrap’s army. Only 1,500 infantry short and fortunately we need not discuss the cavalry LOL.

The point of this is that there is no case for a newly recruited unit of Hypaspists from sources outside the troops already detailed, save for some foot for Amphimachos, who has not featured before. It would also seem that the extra ‘pantodapoi’ had been in the other satrapal contingents; for my money these are not the ‘Epigonoi’ but perhaps the sons of Alexander’s soldiers who were allegedly raised in the Macedonian tradition, there do not appear to be enough for the 30,000 claimed in the Alexander historians.

I can see two possible answers to the ‘Companions’ at Peukestas’ Feast other than their being ‘pezhetairoi’ (since for me that signifies the agema of the Hypaspists, certainly a select group as per Theopompos Ap, scholium on Demosthenes); either it is another word for the guards of the satraps, later called Hypaspists and called somatophylakes in Arrian’s account of the murder of Philip satrap of India (VI 27), or they are just those who had campaigned with Alexander and Diodoros has garbled the sense of the companionship.

My main qualm with Bosworth’s suggestion is that the Argyraspides seem to have been fiercely Macedonian at this stage; see their reasons (or Antigenes’) for thinking that they should select the generalissimo. This runs counter to their seeming tolerance at Opis (if they are, indeed, to be identified with the old Hypaspists) but chimes with the attitudes of the other Macedonians, one of whoms compliants was that foreigners had been given Macedonian unit designations and arms. Foreign ‘hypaspists’ thus seem less likely than Macedonian ones.

Plutarch is not much help, he note the commanders gathering ‘bodyguards’ – doryphoroi (Eum 14 i) and distinguishes the Argyraspides from the phalanx at 16 iii but the latter probably does not mean pikemen just the frontline troops.

Dividing the circumference of the second circle at the feast (2,400ft) by the number of cavalrymen (6,000) yields 0.4ft per man, so they must have sat in more than a single rank, applying the same spacing to the circumference of the Argyraspid circle yields space for 12,000 men which is obviously wrong. If we give each cavalryman 6ft (they were reclining) they would be 15 deep, 3,000 argyraspids would have less room sitting upright as they were so they might all be accommodated in two ranks, either side of benches perhaps, it is something to play with but the details are suspicious in themselves (the reduction by 1200feet each circle). I can’t think of much else to help; very much a case of paying your money and taking your choice.

[agesilaos]

Just a codicil; I forgot to say; we can see that Eumenes was happy amalgamating forces from different commands, above there are the lancers forming Eudamos’ advance guard, Antigenes’ and Peukestas’ agemata merged, the chosen men of the flank guard and ‘ the swiftest and strongest from each command’.

[Paralus]

So this notice of Diodorus, too, is to be thrown into the "cannot be right" basket. We should stick to the evidence, which is that Diodorus plainly states that the 40,000 were heavily armed.

Traditional‘Peltasts’ are NOT lights, who only skirmished. Peltasts were sufficiently heavily armed that they could, and did, take their place fighting in ‘close order’ in a phalanx.

The Macedonian army of Krannon is crucial evidence to the numbers that may have been available to Polyperchon in Spring 318. This army included the over 10,000 veterans (Diod. 17.109.1, 18.4.1, 12.1; Arr.7.12.1; Just 12.12.7) that Krateros had been "sent to Kikilia" with orders regarding the area (Diod. 18.4.1, 12.1). Diodorus (18.16.5) describes this army as:

Including those who had been under Leonnatus, there were gathered together in all more than forty thousand heavy armed infantry, three thousand bowmen and slingers, and five thousand cavalry.

The infantry is explicitly described by Diodorus (or his source for these numbers) as being heavy armed infantry (βαρέσιν ὅπλοις). The suggestion from Xenophon above is that this heavy infantry force must have included peltasts who took their place in the phalanx. But as we know from the Kynoskephalai thread, peltasts (Aetolian at least) are "not fit to take a place in the main battle line" and one cannot "pad out" the Macedonian line with "lights" (mercenary thurrophoroi) which cannit take heavy infantry "frontally". It is far better then, as I've already noted, to stick with what Diodorus (and presumably his source for the figures) actually writes. What remains is to work out how many of the heavy infantry were Macedonian and how many hoplites (mercenary or otherwise). The problem here is that Diodorus near always separates Macedonian infantry from mercenary or allied. There is no such distinction here. Sippas had "an army" and raised more. Antipatros had 13,500. Krateros' "over 10,000" gives 23,000 before we factor in Leonnatos.

Hammond proposes that 30,000 of this army went to Asia in a showdown for empire against the royal army. He also goes on to say that every time Macedonian troops are described as "known for their valour", Alexander's veterans (via Krateros) must be meant. This is not so. Macedonian infantry of this time were akin to the Spartan homoioi of earlier times: the premier infantry troop. Hammond's figure, a guess, is near as good as any though. Again the question arises: how many Macedonian and how many mercenary? If Antipatatros gives 8,500 phalanx troops to Antigonos, how many does he return with? Does he return to a restive Greece, with an as yet pacified Aetolia, with less than this? Most unlikely. The "gift" is the far lesser number.

I'm going to have a Christmas beer and ponder it.

[agesilaos]

Consider this: Diod XVIII

9 1 When Alexander died a short time thereafter and left no sons as successors to the kingdom, the Athenians ventured to assert their liberty and to claim the leadership of the Greeks. As a resource for the war they had the sum of money left by Harpalus, the story of which we told in full in the preceding Book, and likewise the mercenaries who, some eight thousand in number, had been dismissed from service by the satraps and were waiting near Taenarum in the Peloponnesus 2 They therefore gave secret instructions about these to Leosthenes the Athenian ordering him at first to enrol them as if acting on his own responsibility without authority from the city, in order that Antipater, regarding Leosthenes with contempt, might be less energetic in his preparations, and the Athenians, on the other hand, might gain leisure and time for preparing some of the things necessary for the war. 3 Accordingly Leosthenes had very quietly hired the troops mentioned above and, contrary to general belief, had secured a considerable number of men ready for action; for these men, who had campaigned throughout Asia for a long time and had taken part in many great conflicts, had become masters of warfare.
4 Now these things were being done while the death of Alexander was not yet certainly known; but when some came from Babylon who had been eyewitnesses of the king's death, then the popular government openly disclosed its intention of war and sent Leosthenes part of the money of Harpalus and many suits of armour, bidding him no longer act in secret but do openly whatever was advantageous. 5 After Leosthenes had distributed their pay to the mercenaries and had fully armed those who lacked armour, he went to Aetolia to arrange for common action. When the Aetolians listened to him gladly and gave him seven thousand soldiers, he sent to the Locrians and the Phocians and the other neighbouring peoples and urged them to assert their freedom and rid Greece of the Macedonian despotism.

Tainaron only seems to have 8,000 mercenaries to hire and 6,000 of them had apparently been brought by Harpalos, Diod XVII 108

He packed up five thousand talents of silver, enrolled six thousand mercenaries, departed from Asia and sailed across to Attica. 7 When no one there accepted him, he shipped his troops off to Taenarum in Laconia, and keeping some of the money with him threw himself on the mercy of the Athenians.

This means that there seem to be only 2,000 out of work jobbing mercenaries, but the rest are not difficult too find,
Diod. XVIII

10 1 In the Assembly at Athens, while the men of property were advising that no action be taken and the demagogues were rousing the people and urging them to prosecute the war vigorously, those who preferred war and were accustomed to make their living from paid military service were far superior in numbers. These were the men of whom Philip once said that war was peace and peace was war for them.

Clearly, all the Athenian mercenaries had returned to their city, and we might expect the same of other states, this seems to have been one of the aims of the Exile’s Decree, the reason for Leosthenes’ stealth would be two-fold, to lull Antipatros into a false sense of security and to corner the market.

This explains the fact that Antipatros has 13,500 Macedonian foot but Leonnatos can recruit his army up to 20,000 and there were still men for Sippas; he had not called every man out because he had been fooled by the Athenian into down grading the threat.

It was stated above that 30 talents of gold was a bargain price for 8,000 mercenaries; at the standard 10:1 sliver to gold ratio, that’s 300 Talents, standard wages for 225 days, a campaigning season, mercenaries were only paid when campaigning or on garrison duty, hence Philip’s remark above.

On the numbers Antipatros repatriated, he seems to have left Antigonos half the elephants, the cavalry number is corrupt but if the ratio held true he will have brought 17,000 Macedonian foot to Asia, all new to the continent, whilst Krateros’ forces may well have been 10,000 largely his veterans but some must have finally laid down their sarissa so with some of the ‘Home army’. That’s 27,000 and Polyperchon still had an army with which to fight the Aetolians and Thessalians, not to mention the garrison at Athens. Even if mercenaries are included in the totals, Polyperchon’s 20,000 certainly do not seem impossible, as there remain Macedonians from the Royal army to be repatriated, generally considered to equal the new drafts left with Antigonos 8,500 and the Silver shields over and above that. Those beguiled by the ‘Manuals’ should not that 8,500 is not divisible by 2,000.

Enjoy the beer!

Ooops! Nearly forgot Diodoros note on the Macedonians being short of ‘citizen soldiers’, if one applies it to the cavalry total it is true, Antipatros has only 600 when Alexander had taken 1,800 and he had been left 1,500. Unlike the masses of the peasantry, the noble companionate would suffer from having its strength drawn into Asia. We can be certain that there was no native reservoir to replenish the drafts as Philip II had found it expedient to import and ennoble Greeks, much to the disgust of Theopompos.