different Arrian translations and editions.

[Efstathios]

I searched the net for the exact translation of "φιλοτιμια" in English. It is a unique word, but i stumbled across something that might interest you.

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/ ... -10-a.html

All in all , the 1893 translation is being "copied" by the moderns that maybe don't bother to translate for themselves. And as the author correctly indicates, there is no mention of old rivalries, and especially "old" in the original text. The word philotimia is still being used today in Greek, and the official meaning is dignity, honor, pride. "αξιοπρέπεια, τιμή, περηφάνια"

Why the translation was like this back at 1893, beats me. The Macedonian ethnicity matter was raised by General Tito back at 1915, so obviously the whole concept must have been older. However maybe there is no "deceit"in the first translation, rather than just a very innacurate translation.

Spitamenes, i haven't found anything else to indicate a mis-translation in Arrian. I haven't searched so hard though.

P.S The word "enepesen" of course doesn't literally mean "fallen" rather than "filled with". They were filled with philotimian. The translation is actually easy for a Greek, but trying to explain these words in English is a bit tricky, some words have to be translated with a phrase because they are idioms.

[Paralus]

The word philotimia is still being used today in Greek, and the official meaning is dignity, honor, pride. "αξιοπρέπεια, τιμή, περηφάνια"

Words never stay the same. We are discussing the word as used by Arrian - or more likely his source some 2,300 years ago. More to the point, words are used differently because they can convey different meanings. Thus you need to look at how an author uses the word and Arrian uses philotimia to convey rivalry / ambitious rivalry each time he uses it outside of this case. It is therefore exceedingly likely that he is using it exactly the same here. Especially in the context of battle where the two opponents have "fallen upon" each other. Arrian is not alone. Polybios too uses it in this way (4.87.7 for example) as do Arrian's "models" Xenophon (eg Cyr.8.1.39) and Thucydides who uses it for "ambition" (eg 3.82.8). Arrian is clearly indicating rivalry between the two camps.

The website you link to is a site with a very definite agenda and,as such, should be treated with extreme care. The post you link to makes the error that I allude to above : it does not consider the other useages of the word by Arrian as I've endeavoured to show. I could be graceless and suggest that is becuase it does not suit the writer's agenda. In fact I will: it does not suit so he takes it in isolation. Thus he never considers that Alexander was cast into a state of "love of honour" by the barbarian jibes at the Soghdian rock; that Perdiccas' two men, fired up by wine, charge the defences out of "love of honour"; that the pages participaed in the "love of honour" of the hunt or that Alexander had enjoyed a "love of honour" with Achilles from boyhood. One might also add that Diodorus also uses this word for such. When Eumenes (described throughout as a xenoi or foreigner as compared to Macedonians) arrived in Susiane with the satrapal coalition there was "found to be a good deal of rivalry (philotimian)for the chief command". One hardly suspects he meant to say "love of honour" for the cheif command. Nor is it easy to see any "love of honour" as Eumenes and Neoptolemus charge each other at 18.31.1.

As for his view that Arrian is a "late Hellenistic" writer, that is true. What is also true is that - as you've pointed out - Arrian attempted to emulate Thucydides and Xenophon in both style and language (classic Attic). Your forum poster seems to have forgotten that.

[agesilaos]

Perhaps 'desire for honour' would convey the meaning of philotimeia better than 'love of honour' ;or even 'lust for glory' ; Patton Philotimaios has a sort of ring to it.

[Paralus]

Patton Philotimaios has a sort of ring to it.

Very apt.

And, whilst "desire for honour" or "lust for glory" might also work, it is clear that Arrian's usage is not anywhere near as benign as Stathi or the nationalistic Macedonian site would like to make out. "Rivalry" born of competition or ambition seems Arrians's intent in all cases. At Issos that competition was deadly and was clearly framed by their identities.

That said, the same might well be said of the Thebans and Spartans at Leuktra or Mantinea...

[Efstathios]

I am not trying to be stubborn about this, and i am not blinded by national pride, i am trying to be objective, as well as i can. But reading that sentence just doesn't seem right.

It's pretty simple, really. Arrian uses "philotimia" to indicate desire for glory mostly, and in the situation of battles it's exactly that, the soldiers were filled with phitlotimia, with desire for glory and to win. No better words come to my mind to explain it right now. It is obvious that both sides were engaged in a fierce fight, but that is not connected with ethnic rivalry. Rivalry indicates exactly what the word says, and what these men were doing, they were fighting, but ethnic rivalry is another thing, and this is where the word "genos" is added to the equasion. Arrian uses "genos" many times and always to identify groups, and ancient writters, well before Arrian, used the word genos in the same manner. The genos (born) of Heracles, of Sparta, of Athens. It does not refer to ethnicity, as the ancient Greeks did not refer to themselves as different ethnicities, rather than city states and kingdoms. Let's not forget the phrase "Pas mi Ellin varvaros", whoever is not a Greek is a barbarian. Macedonia obviously wasn't part of the barbarians... and only Demosthenes in his rants accused them of being barbarians, but we all know the story about Demosthenes, so i think it isn't necessary to discuss it here.
So, Arrian does not refer to different ethnicities, but different groups, and borns, the Macedonians and the Greeks. And that's all. And then there is this "old" word, that isn't anywhere to be found on the original. So, no "old rivalries".

[Paralus]

I don't know why you're hung up on "old": I've never suggested such. Nice to see we're no longer accusing translators of deliberately falsifying history though.

It's pretty simple, really. Arrian uses "philotimia" to indicate desire for glory mostly, and in the situation of battles it's exactly that, the soldiers were filled with phitlotimia, with desire for glory and to win. No better words come to my mind to explain it right now. It is obvious that both sides were engaged in a fierce fight, but that is not connected with ethnic rivalry. Rivalry indicates exactly what the word says, and what these men were doing, they were fighting, but ethnic rivalry is another thing, and this is where the word "genos" is added to the equasion.

And the fiercest form of rivalry is fighting. I will not go through all Arrian's uses of the word for I've done that above and that is what should inform this use. Ambition/competition/rivalry are the best fit for all of them. The desire for glory and honour is clearly addressed by Arrian in the preceding sentence where the Macedonians fiercly struggle not to let down the king and the Greeks to throw them back into the river to rescue their side. Arrian makes it plain that here is the thirst for honour - especially that of the undefeated Macedonian phalanx. This last is, of course, nonsense: the Macedonian phalanx had already been defeated twice prior to Issos.

Arrian uses "genos" many times and always to identify groups, and ancient writters, well before Arrian, used the word genos in the same manner.

Arrian does use the word genos often. Immediately preceding this usage, in Alexander's speech to his troops just prior to the battle ( 2.7.5), Arrian uses it to denote the "Asian races" assembled to fight for Darius (the laziest and softest tribes/races of Asia tes Asias gene). He clearly does not mean the softest groups of Asia. He does similar at 3.22.4 where Darius loses a vast army composed of all the barbarian nationalities (barbarikou genous) in his former empire. At 4.3.7 he compares Pharnuches, "a Lycian by birth" (genos), against the Macedonians; meaning that by descent, and as a Lycian, he was other than those he was placed over. Pharasmanes also visits Alexander to convince him to help conquer the nations (genei) of the Colchians and the races/nations (gene) in the area of the Euxine Sea (4.15.4). At 7.13.4 we have the race (genos) of the Amazons and the "Phasians, Colchians, and all the other barbaric races (genos)" which Xenophon's Greeks came across.

The genos (born) of Heracles, of Sparta, of Athens. It does not refer to ethnicity, as the ancient Greeks did not refer to themselves as different ethnicities, rather than city states and kingdoms.

I agree the word can be used to denote "groups" or familial descent (as I've noted earlier). Clearly, though, the word can be used - and is used by Arrian - to denote separate ethnic groups. In the Persian army list of Gaugamela, for example, Arrian includes the "Sakai". He describes these people, in clear terms, as members of the Scythian race of Asia and allied to Darius (Skuthikon touto to genos ton ten Asian epoikountn Skuthon). Even should we see this in your more innocuos form of "born of the Scythians of Asia", Arrian without any doubt, is indicating their Scythian ethnicity.

If the Issos notation is used in terms of "descended from" or "born of" it is, just as clearly, denoting identity: those of Macedonian and Greek descent. Arrian has already identified the combatants in the immediately preceding sentence; there is little need for it here unless it is associated with genesi to denote identity. As I wrote before, the Spartans and the Thebans might well have been described in such terms. The classical Greeks clearly saw themselves as distinct identities even if they shared the same temples, gods, language, etc. Thus the Athenians can exhort themselves to fight for "their country" against the Spartans.