Tetrarchy?

Discuss the culture of Alexander's world and his image in art

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Efstathios wrote:Has anyone got an update concerning the Oxyrynchus papyri project? If there is anything new to be found, it will probably come from there.
The POxyrhynchus Online website is probably your best source with its indexed database and updated news reports (infrequent as they are). Have had difficulty finding transcriptions for most of the fragments though. Still, I wish there was a similar site for the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum.

Paralus, they're showing only two fragments for Xenophon on the POxy site and four for Thucydides.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Thanks Amyntoros. Wish I could read and translate the fragments!!

Merry Christmas.

Time for bed......................
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

Merry bloody Christmas Stathi. You should cease smoking so much. Strewth! I'm talking to a Greek!!

You might just as well respond that I should cease bothering decent reds so much.

Hmmm. Detente seems best.

All the best mate: wish the blody hell I could be doing it again. Never forget driving in Athens.

Not this year I'm afraid.

Always a comfy bed here though........and time for me to crawl into mine.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Merry Christmas to you too, and all pothosians.
You should cease smoking so much
I am working on that. To cease it completely that is. :)
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Post by agesilaos »

Siebert is surely right about the technical language vis-a-vis the successors since Diodoros source, Hieronymos was precise or at least more consistent than usual in his usage, no doubt 'bad style' for the later grammarians; such a dashed long book and no variation in nomenclature - shocking.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

agesilaos wrote:Siebert is surely right about the technical language vis-a-vis the successors since Diodoros source, Hieronymos was precise or at least more consistent...
Yes. It helps having taken part in the actions and thus being a part of the army and its structure. The later writers did not. Arrian served the Romans and these four hundred year old names will have meant little to the average reader. After all, following Pydna the Macedonian military and the state institutions that supported it whithered away into irrelevancy.
agesilaos wrote: Hieronymos was precise or at least more consistent than usual in his usage, no doubt 'bad style' for the later grammarians; such a dashed long book and no variation in nomenclature .
He, he. Cheeky bugger.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
abm
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:38 pm

Post by abm »

agesilaos wrote:Siebert is surely right about the technical language vis-a-vis the successors since Diodoros source, Hieronymos was precise or at least more consistent than usual in his usage
To my mind Seibert is certainly wrong here. Even if Hieronymus was Diodorus' source for the entire Successor narrative or if Diodorus used another completely accurate source on the matter, there is no reason why Diodorus should have retained this accuracy.

Consider the following passages on the appointment of Antipatros as regent:
Diodorus XVIII 39.2 wrote:οἱ δὲ Μακεδόνες ἐπιμελητὴν εἵλαντο τὸν Ἀντίπατρον αὐτοκράτορα

the Macedonians elected Antipatros regent with absolute powers
and
Diodorus XIX 29.3 wrote: Ἀντίπατρος καθ´ ὃν καιρὸν ἐπιμελητὴς ἀπεδείχθη τῆς βασιλείας

(...) Antipatros at the time he was appointed regent of the kingdom
Here, of course, one might argue that regent (epimeletes) alone is the title and that what follows ("with absolute powers" or "of the kingdom") is unimportant. However, there are other passages where Diodorus terms the same office "regent for the kings" (epimeletes ton basileon). According to some, the difference between "regent for the kings" and "regent of the kingdom" is relevant, but this seems to me a too modern constitutional view. So let's take a case which is more telling: Polyperchon's appointment.
Diodorus XVIII 47.4 wrote:ἡ δὲ τῶν ὅλων ἡγεμονία καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἡ ἐπιμέλεια μεταπέπτωκεν εἰς Πολυπέρχοντα τὸν Μακεδόνα.

the power over the entire empire and the regency for the kings had been transferred to Polyperchon
Diodorus XVIII 48.4 wrote:ἀπέδειξεν ἐπιμελητὴν τῶν βασιλέων Πολυπέρχοντα καὶ στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα

he appointed Polyperchon regent for the kings and general with absolute powers
Here Diodorus was at least incomplete in the first passage, not mentioning that Polyperchon also became general with absolute powers. It is also possible that in his source some title was given which he once took over as "general with absolute powers" and another time as "(the one with) the power over the entire empire". In any case, it is clear that he was not consistent in the use of titles and that he did not really care.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

abm wrote:So let's take a case which is more telling: Polyperchon's appointment.
Diodorus XVIII 47.4 wrote:ἡ δὲ τῶν ὅλων ἡγεμονία καὶ τῶν βασιλέων ἡ ἐπιμέλεια μεταπέπτωκεν εἰς Πολυπέρχοντα τὸν Μακεδόνα.

the power over the entire empire and the regency for the kings had been transferred to Polyperchon
Diodorus XVIII 48.4 wrote:ἀπέδειξεν ἐπιμελητὴν τῶν βασιλέων Πολυπέρχοντα καὶ στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα

he appointed Polyperchon regent for the kings and general with absolute powers
Here Diodorus was at least incomplete in the first passage, not mentioning that Polyperchon also became general with absolute powers. It is also possible that in his source some title was given which he once took over as "general with absolute powers" and another time as "(the one with) the power over the entire empire". In any case, it is clear that he was not consistent in the use of titles and that he did not really care.
I don't know whether he did not "really care" but he certainly didn't take enough care at times. Instance his confusion of doryphoroi and bodyguards at Philip's murder and somatophylake for the pages arriving in Asia.

It might be arguing for the sake of it but, if one were to describe Polyperchon as having received "the power over the empire", would that not imply "power" over its armed forces? Up until then the only other "challenger" will have been the "strategos of Asia" - Antigonus - and in the narrative that follows, Polyperchon offers Eumenes the office of "royal general".
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
abm
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:38 pm

Post by abm »

Paralus wrote: (...) if one were to describe Polyperchon as having received "the power over the empire", would that not imply "power" over its armed forces? Up until then the only other "challenger" will have been the "strategos of Asia" - Antigonus - and in the narrative that follows, Polyperchon offers Eumenes the office of "royal general".
Absolutely, but it also means that Diodorus was not correct in his use of titles, unless you argue (as Carney has done) that there were no titles in Macedon, but that's a view I do not agree with.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by Paralus »

No, I would not agree with Carney either. Titles definitely existed and for a great many things it would seem. Humans are fond of such things: it denotes position, importance etc.

I do sometimes think that the trenchant criticism of Diodorus - slavish copier, inept epitomiser, clumsy copyist, mindless and too stupid to realise his mistakes - goes rather too far. Given the nature of what he set out to do, one could apply such critique to Livius; I'd grant that Livy does a somewhat fuller job of it though his brief is more - in comparison - limited. Indeed, the passage I quoted on the Which General thread might, as I wrote, indicate copy error on the part of Livy if he is (as seems certain) following Polybius.

Much, if not all, stems from a bigoted view framed by the modern historian's discipline. It is reflected in the view that Livy, for example, should have roused himself to consult the libraries and records available to him in Rome and elsewhere before repeating - in his words - the works of others. This demonstrates a failure to understand the fact that such modern discipline did not exist. It was not, with very few exceptions, how history was written. One might as well ask Livy or Diodorus to use a ball point for better clarity of writing. Even those who might have resembled a modern approach - Polybius and Thucydides - do so in terms of their times. We would no more accept largely invented speeches today, often used to demonstrate the thinking behind the major players, as would we the copyist method or moral themes that underpin these histories.

All that said I don't believe that many of the titles or nomenclature meant a huge amount to fellow like Diodorus who attempted a "world-wide history". He is happier when discoursing on Sicily. The "jargon" employed by the Macedonian elites to describe their structures and positions of power most likely did not engage his radar terribly. His source for Philip’s murder, for instance, has led him to denote Pausanias as somatophylax (Plutarch uses doryphoros) but the subsequent description would seem to make plain he was of the pezhetairoi or agema of the hypaspists, as it would be known under Alexander, for if he is one of the seven then so are Leonnatus and Perdiccas. If the nomenclature, as I've noted elsewhere, altered after Alexander’s accession, we might expect confusion in the sources.

On this point Arrian, often regarded as the near impeccable version, confuses these terms too often for it not to betray the fact that he occasionally couldn't see the title for the nomenclature. This is not to heavily criticise the man for he is following, for the great part, two primary sources well aware of the jargon and in no great need of explaining it.

All of which is not to excuse a lack of care in compilation. In any case, I’d give a year’s salary to the bloke who discovered an extant copy of Hieronymus. Perhaps two if also located Theopompus or Marsayas Macedon!
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
Post Reply