The occupant of Tomb III

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Paralus »

There is much to deal with in the above but, as I’m out the door to a feed, I’ll limit comments to the below.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:One might ask, given the certain nature of these claims, just how well does the evidence support them? The notion of an “anti-Kassandros” bias has been dealt with above, how does Antigonos fare in the pro-Antigonos “Diodorus/Hieronymus”? The answer is, oddly enough, not very well at all. Just as Kassandros is consistently portrayed and successful and decisive, Antigonos is consistently portrayed as overly ambitious (18.41.4-5, 47.5, 50.1-2 & 5, 54.4, 58.4; 19.55.4-6, 56.2). He is often referred as being “arrogant” or “harsh” (18.52.4; 19.56.2; 20.106.3) – the opposite of the ‘proper’ king and in stark contrast to the portrayal of his enemy, Ptolemy. Far more condemnatory is the constant description throughout period of Antigonos as a rebel against the kings (18.55.2; 57.3; 62.3; 63.4). Hieronymus, the “propagandist for Antigonos”, would seem quite happy to describe Antigonos as a traitor to the monarchy as well as wishing to take over the entire empire while refusing to obey the kings and behaving in an arrogant or harsh manner.


.......in fact for each of these criticisms of Antigonus, one can find praise as well – he is described as a military genius for example. Diodorus' treatment of Antigonus is generally sympathetic, even if Antigonus is never presented as a hero as are both Eumenes and Demetrius whom Hieronymous also served.
None of which deals with the issue I’m afraid. It is irrelevant that Diodorus might describe Antigonos as a ‘military genius’ (source attributions in kind would be appreciated). Antigonos, patriarch of the dynasty, is uniformly described as a traitor to the Macedonian monarchy by Diodorus’ source. It is not conceivable that Hieronymus, writing under Antigonid patronage, could so destroy the historical perception of the founder of the Antigonid dysnasty - especially while at the same time fawning over his great enemy, Ptolemy. You really need to provide some cogent source analysis which embraces this fact for fact it remains – uncomfortable though it is.

All the Successor dynasties claimed connections with, and to be the legitimate continuators of, the Argeads. The Antigonids were no exception whatsoever. Destroying the reputation of the founder in no way aids that.
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
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by amyntoros »

Have tried not to butt in here where the argument appears to have developed into a "for or against" re Olympias being (still) a Virago in everyone's mind, then and now, and Cassander being misunderstood. I like Carney's assessment of Olympias and see no point in reiterating that here once again, but I must admit that there may be prejudice against Cassander on "our" part rather than the that of the ancients. He really didn't do anything more than the others in these warring times, including Olympias, but it's unfortunate for him that he ended Alexander's line by killing a youth and his mother. That kind of thing does tend to generate a negative attitude towards a person.

Must admit that, although I'm trying very hard to be objective, I do have difficulty with the suggestion that Alexander IV was placed in 'safe custody" until circumstances changed. I prefer to believe that it was primarily his increasing age rather than any outside circumstances that brought about his death. And as for 'safe custody' I just cannot help thinking about a case here in the US not that long ago where a grandmother literally ran her nine-year-old granddaughter to death for some small misdemeanor, ordering her to keep running in the yard for hours and hours on a blazing hot day while carrying firewood in her arms. The woman's defense was that she was helping her granddaughter to be a better runner because, "Instead of coming in second in her running class at school, she wanted to come in first.” That sickening feeling that have about this woman and her defense regarding the child's death is much the same as I have about Alexander IV. I can't find any credible argument for his imprisonment other than the one where Cassander did it to keep the child and his mother out of the public eye and alive long enough for thoughts of Alexander's offspring to have slipped somewhat from the public consciousness. Which sort of brings me to the following (because of the defense of Cassander in this matter): Italics are mine.
Xenophon wrote: There are plenty of examples of “anti-Kassander”propaganda and I have alluded to a number of them where Kassander is painted in a poor light. The way in which Aristonous was disposed of, the alleged need to‘urge’ the relatives to accuse Olympias, his supposed plan to murder her at sea [ again, how could anyone know of such a supposed secret plan?, his supposed fear of Olympias when she was hopelessly without support and helplessly within his power, his treatment of her corpse, his supposed early ambitions to be King, and early plans to kill little Alexander IV and his mother, his supposed removal of the non-existent ‘paides’ and royal privileges of Alexander [something of a giveaway of an intent which still lay far in the future, one might imagine] – the list goes on.
Is there any authority we can look to which will confirm that all of the above events are rightfully "supposed", or is this simply about perceived anti-Cassander propaganda? Because I believe we have a problem if there is no authority per se. In this computer age we easily recognize propaganda because we can weigh it against what we know to be true. Unfortunately, in ancient times, we don't always have the truth available. For example, comparatively little is known about the Pages and the only young princes written about were Alexander III and IV, so we really do not know for sure if the Page's duties included protecting the sons of the king. It follows that if the reports in Diodorus are to be considered propaganda, what do we have elsewhere that shines the light on the then presumed misinformation in Diodorus? Because, without support, if we regard all this information regarding Cassander as only supposition, then surely the same can be applied elsewhere regarding different people and different situations wherein we can simply call it propaganda. I'm afraid we are stuck with what little secondary source information we have. Yes, sometimes one can recognize perhaps a Roman influence, and sometimes the sources disagree and we are forced to choose, but I am very wary of dismissing something as supposition unless there are very convincing reasons - with confirmation from more than one source - and I'm not seeing that. Now, I'm not saying that someone cannot have an opinion as such, but I'd prefer it to be made clear that it is an opinion (and then I won't find myself posting at 3 AM). :)
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by agesilaos »

Several points to address here, I'll start with the alleged Pages, and here I can help Amyntoros with solid evidence
Diod XIX 53 iv
ἀπέσπασε δὲ καὶ τοὺς εἰωθότας παῖδας συντρέφεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν οὐκέτι βασιλικήν
Oldfather translates
Also he took away the pages who, according to custom, were being brought up as companions of the boy
The error in translation is quite plain, misled by his knowledge of Macedonian institutions Oldfather translates 'παῖδες' as Pages, despite the fact that the description does not fit; the Pages were not he boyhood companions of princes; had he translated straight forwardly as 'boys' the error disappears. These are the 'syntrophoi' of whom we also hear under Philip II, where Alexander's syntrophoi Ptolemy, Harpalos, Laomedon and Erygios are mentioned, will have too check Heckel's Marshals for refs.

So Diodoros' source is no fool after all.

Now the Macedonian Assembly was NOT just soldiers in arms, Curtius VI 8 xxv
25 De capitalibus rebus vetusto Macedonum modo inquirebat rex, iudicabat exercitusº — in pace erat vulgi — et nihil potestas regum valebat, nisi prius valuisset auctoritas.
In capital cases it was a long-established Macedonian practice for the king to conduct the trial while the army (or the commons in peacetime) acted as jury, and the position of the king counted for nothing unless his influence had been substantial before the trial. Yardley Penguin
Nor did Kassandros army consist of Macedonians, it will have been mainly mercenary. It is quite fallacious, therefore to invent a solidly pro-Kassandros Assembly. Now, one must concede that the inner thoughts of leaders remain speculation but into this Assembly Kassandros introduced the relatives clearly it was not in his pocket, or at least he thought that it was not. He was not as secure as some want to make out, the Macedonians only went over to him once the deserters from Pydna had spread news of Olympias' straits and Aeacides' invasion had been dissipated (Diod XIX 36 v). Nor was he king, and there is a possibility that he required the relatives to bring charges as he could not, though the distancing of himself from possible accusations of simple revenge may have played a political part. Whilst revenge-killing and blood-feud were standard Macedonian fare Kassandros would have realised that 'Blood will have blood!', by bringing a class action, as such, he makes himself a protector of the common good rather than an outraged brother.

There was nothing clandestine about the disposal of Aristonous, so quite why any doubt need be raised about it is beyond me, it does, of course further suggest that Kassandros was not firmly in charge of the kingdom yet and had to act by 'other means'. This is hardly surprising as he had only just won the war in this sector and the allegiance of the Macedonians was new and untested. Nor should we tar the Greeks with an English sense of fair-play nor Christian sensibilities, they savoured a dirty trick and relished in cunning.

The so-called secret plan, cannot have been that secret, the offer was made via messengers and thus was the reply delivered. Just because Xenophon wants to paint a picture not found in the sources does not make it so; Diodoros tells us that Kassandros' power was newly won and that the Macedonians were fickle, his fear for his position is demonstrated by his public actions and should be accepted. Kassandros was ever cautious. So it is you who suppose that 'she was hopelessly without support and helplessly within his power'.

How you can bring in the 'treatment of her corpse' when you have covered pages claiming that the Kastas skeleton cannot be her because of the want of scavenging just amuses me, you did correct me over claiming you suffered from cognitive dissonance, and you were clearly right; holding mutually opposed positions does not seem to trouble you in the least. :lol:

Which sign of the Royal ambitions do you doubt; the founding of Kassandreia? The burial of Philip et al? The Marriage to Thessalonike? Or the assumption of quasi -royal authority thatyou claim he had before the trial of Olympias?

The Pages are indeed non-existant, an artefact of a slack translation but that does not encompass the removal of all royal privileges, nor does Alexander IV ever intrude into the historical record until he is noted to have been murdered 'shome custody, shome protection'.

Of course if one wishes to simply write whatever one likes with no reference to the sources one can claim source bias and simply proceed, I do not call that History, however.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:
Before we progress to the sources, it might be well to correct that last statement. It is not simply the institution that is respected in these cases, but the royal family – that of Philip including his son Alexander III and his wife Olympias as the sources relate .
....that is not “correcting” anything, because it is simply wrong! What I have said is “correct” and it is your addition of “and his wife Olympias” that you have slipped in which is incorrect. Nowhere is Olympias ‘respected’ on her own account, or for her own deeds or qualities, but only on account of her position. She simply basks in the reflected glory of her husband King Philip and her son King Alexander, and it is the ‘benefits’ to Macedon that they have brought that are the basis of the Macedonians honouring their glory and reknown, as the quotations above ( and others) are careful to make clear.
Trogus/Justin wrote:where Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was, who would be no small support to their party, while the good will of their countrymen would be with them, from respect to the names of Alexander and Philippus.
We note that Olympias is considered apart from the respect for Alexander and Philip. We also note that Olympias, herself, "would be no small support" for the Perdikkan cause.
Xenophon wrote:You misunderstand. The supposition and speculation is that Cassander fears that the crowd might change its mind. What could the original source know of the contents of Kassander’s mind, or the prospects of those present [Kassander's own men! ]changing its collective mind?
Diodorus' source does not suggest that the contents of Kassanros' mind are known. That source relates exactly what Kassandros did: trial without any defence; the need to have the relatives make the case - a case you consider completely open and shut; denial of a second hearing where Olympias can put her case. The reason is clearly that Kassandros will not afford the Macedonians the chance to change their view. Something Kassandros knows they have done already and will do again (as I've already shown). He will have Herakles murdered for exactly the same reasons.
Xenophon wrote:Are you saying that Diodoros’-source-who-was-almost-certainly-Hieronymous is unbiased because he reports Kassander’s doings “without comment”? A source doesn’t have to comment or criticise to be biased or even downright hostile, or to report untruths.[…] Unsurprisingly Kassander is denigrated by a writer in the service of Antigonus.[…] There are plenty of examples of “anti-Kassander”propaganda and I have alluded to a number of them where Kassander is painted in a poor light.
I’d note that others have disposed of this line of reasoning and add only three things. Firstly it does not do to claim that Diodorus’ source was biased for Antiogonon Monophthalmos and against Kassandros and then, on this basis, proceed to claim any action of Kassandros that does not conform to a particular view as “propaganda” to be thus set aside as untrue. One wonders what we might ever be left with if our sources were all treated in such a fashion. I might as easily claim source bias against Olympias on this line of “reasoning” citing the overturned graves and murders of Kassandros' supporters as “untruths”, exaggerated or “propaganda”.

Secondly, on the pages, I confess to not having checked the Greek whilst compiling the list of passages where Diodorus maligns Antigonos. I see that Agesilaos has posted that and what is being referred to here are the ‘brothers’ or syntrophoi. We can readily remove this from the list of supposed egregious untruths in Diodorus’ source.

Thirdly, Diodorus lists the actions of Kassandros, post Olympias death, in a thematic excursus. Those actions clearly and strongly indicate that Kassandros, as Diodorus writes, was acting as does a king. The burial of the “royal predecessor” and the foundation of an eponymus city are clearly “kingly acts”. The marriage to Thessalonike was also clearly aimed at adding Argead legitimacy to his pretensions. Denial of these matters as “untruths” or propaganda is somewhat perverse.

On the matter of “without comment”, I’d note that Diodorus does not claim that Kassandros was a “man of blood” (Perdikkas); a traitor to the kings (Antigonos); wished to rule over the entire empire (Antigonos); was regarded with contempt (Polyperchon); etc. The killing of Aristonous is done for the self-same reasons Antigonos disposed of Peithon and it might pay to consider that neither man (Antigonos and even more so Kassandros) participated in the great eastern anabasis (Antigonos being left in Phrygia). Both men had to deal with those who had received “preferment” at the hands of Alexander and both resorted to similar solutions.
Xenophon wrote: How can you, or Diodorus, or Hieronymous for that matter, know under what conditions Alexander lived, especially if it was behind closed doors in Amphipolis ?
As easily as you can decide the king and his mother were simply in “safe keeping”. Diodorus is clear that Kassandros removed the young king’s syntrophoi along with any other mark of royal status. The act clearly delegitimises the young AlexanderIV. The king(s) had been the wards of four regents (ἐπιμελητὴν δὲ τῆς βασιλείας): Perdikkas; Peithon and Arrhidaeus; Polyperchon) if we discount Antigonos’ several months before Antipatros removed the kings from his custody. None of these regents are ever attested to have imprisoned or, more to the point, removed all the royal trappings from the king as did Kassandros.

Xenophon wrote: It has been ‘communis opinio’ that Hieronymous is the most likely source of Diodorus for Books XVIII-XX inclusive, but not absolutely certain, for the best part of 100 years, hence my conservative ‘likely’. If thereafter I say ‘Hieronymous’, that is merely for convenience. Should I have continually written “Diodoros’-source-who-was-almost-certainly-Hieronymous” ? Are you inferring that there was some other source for this section?
The source(s) of Diodorus 18-20 are a matter of evolving debate. Statements such that Diodorus 18-20 are a reliable mirror of Hieronymus or that Hieronymus’ “account can be retrieved with satisfying fullness from Diodorus Books 18-20” (Hornblower, The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, Cambridge, 312) have been, and continue to be, challenged. An entire ‘industry’ has grown up around a non-extant historian on this basis. A basis that is largely circular. For example, Hieronymus was a serious military historian and thus Diodorus’ detailed military narratives in 18-20 are due to using Hieronymus as his source. That Hieronymus is a very competent military historian is arrived at from Diodorus detailed narrative. One gets the point.

More to the point, as I replied yesterday, if Hieronymus is the source of 18-20, some serious problems need to be addressed. As is well known, Hieronymus wrote his history under Antigonid patronage. Hieronymus’ reputation was widely known in the ancient world as Pausanias informs us:
The account, however, given by Hieronymus the Cardian is different, for a man who associates with royalty cannot help being a partial historian. If Philistus was justified in suppressing the most wicked deeds of Dionysius, because he expected his return to Syracuse, surely Hieronymus may be fully forgiven for writing to please Antigonus (1.13.9).

But this Hieronymus has a reputation generally of being biased against all the kings except Antigonus, and of being unfairly partial towards him (1.9.8).
The first tells us that Hieronymus wrote “to please Antigonos (Gonatas)”. Writing at the Antigonid court, Hieronymus could hardly have done otherwise and so his history certainly painted the Antigonids in a rosy light. The second passage makes plain that Hiernonymus was widely known in the ancient world as being partial towards Antigonos and, by extension, the Antigonid dynasty. If any ‘bias’ exists in the original work it will have been toward Hieronymus’ patrons – the Antigonids. We could expect that their actions were described in a positive light.

It is most surprising, then, that as I wrote earlier, the founder of that dynasty is repeatedly described by Diodorus’ source as a rebel or traitor (ἀποστάτην) to the monarchy; that he is, as opposed to the other Diadochi, overly ambitious and wishing to rule all; that he is the opposite of a proper king due to his harshness/arrogance. I have discussed the the idea of Antigonos being a rebel in earlier posts and his ambitions are plain in the sources. It is the latter that requires some attention.

The proper attributes of the good king were ἐπιεικείας and φιλανθρώπως or ‘fairness’ and ‘kindness’. Antigonos’ two great enemies, Ptolemy and Seleukos, are both described as possessing these qualities (18.14.1, 18.4, 19.55.5 & 19.92.5 respectively). Ptolemy is three times so described in eulogistic passages and, at 19.55.5, is described as such while being explicitly contrasted with Antigonos. In absolute stark contrast, these terms are never used to describe Antigonos’ character. He is, as I’ve shown, described as overly ambitious, arrogant and a rebel.

19.55.5 is illuminating in another sense. Not only are Antigonos and his actions compared to Ptolemy’s more kingly nature, but it also highlights a passage where Seleukos gets a good airing. It is an instance where Seleukid propaganda intrudes. At 19.90.4 Seleukos is presaged as king and it seems that the gods and Alexander are on his side in his ventures. That Seleukos is presented as favoured by the gods and Alexander in contrast to Antigonos is very difficult to comprehend in a court historian.

It remains highly problematical to the ‘Hieronyman industry’ that a court historian of the Antigonids could actually write such material. As I’ve been at pains to point out, Hieronymus, working under Antigonid patronage, can hardly have produced such a denigratory portrait of the dynasty’s founder all the while producing such encomiastic descriptions of that founder’s great enemies.
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
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Xenophon »

Almost four thousand words by three posters to respond to!! :shock: Obviously I don't have the time to respond in detail to this deluge of words, the more so as I am about to go into hospital for an operation shortly.

I hope my fellow posters will forgive me if I confine myself to just a few matters.

Paralus wrote:
It is not conceivable that Hieronymus, writing under Antigonid patronage, could so destroy the historical perception of the founder of the Antigonid dysnasty - especially while at the same time fawning over his great enemy, Ptolemy. You really need to provide some cogent source analysis which embraces this fact for fact it remains – uncomfortable though it is.
Shome mishtake there, shurely? What Hieronymous may or may not have written according to you is speculation, not fact. For example, if he was perhaps not as glowing about Antigonus as his other two masters, and even if he actually disliked him (another unknowable), that would not have stopped him doing Antigonus' bidding and denigrating Cassander (Antigonus' former ally) around the time of the "Greek Freedoms" speech - whom Hieronymous would not care about. Moreover, many scholars don't believe that the flattering sections on Ptolemy, a known Eumenid enemy [ e.g. Seibert, Bosworth and recently Rathman 2014] come from Hieronymous, but were rather obtained by Diodorus from Alexandrian sources during his sojourn in Egypt. ( see also Jane Hornblower, "Hieronymous of Cardia" ) Perhaps you should do some source analysis of your own.

Amyntoros wrote:
Have tried not to butt in here where the argument appears to have developed into a "for or against" re Olympias being (still) a Virago in everyone's mind, then and now, and Cassander being misunderstood.
This is quite incorrect.I don't believe anyone here is depicting Olympias as a villainess. I assume your use of the word "virago" means you are familiar with Carney's paper of that name, as well as her biography of Olympias.For the record I share Carney's view that she was no better or worse than the other players. She too suffered from 'black propaganda', with the added icing on the cake of misogyny, both ancient and modern.

The point under debate here is whether Olympias had great support and 'popularity' in Macedon so as to leave Kassander "... fearing that the crowd might change its mind if it heard the queen defend herself and was reminded of all the benefits conferred on the entire nation by Alexander and Philip." Paralus argues for this rather unlikely scenario, when he should be looking at the whole thing rather more critically.

Aside from the fact what Kassander did or didn't fear can only be conjecture by the source - for propaganda purposes - "the crowd" in this instance consists of Kassander's own soldiers, many of whom were thirsting for 'blood-vengeance'. Hardly likely to "change its mind", and in addition go against their commander's clear wishes.
The underlying facts also don't support this view of widespread support for Olympias. After Euia, such support as she may have had - and it doesn't seem to have ever been much - rapidly evaporated . Dorothy King, for example, has stated that Olympias was actually "unpopular in Macedon". As I said back on page 2 :
At the time of the trial, she had no armies, no allies, virtually no support, no hope of rescue from overseas allies. It was not lack of certainty about his position that made Kassander circumspect.

Overall, I don't believe we, or our sources, have any means of gauging the exact extent of support for Olympias, but 'res ipsa loquitur/the facts speak for themselves'. After Euia, Olympias'/Polyperchon's support declined very rapidly, and within a few short months she found herself besieged in Pydna, (and her only territory Pella and Amphipolis, both garrisoned by her supporters), deserted by both troops and allies, while Kassander's fortunes waxed as rapidly as his those of his enemies waned.
Whatever Kassander's reasons for wanting the matter disposed of quickly, it cannot have been 'fear' that Olympias was about to make a spectacular comeback, as Hieronymous-or-whoever-the-source-was speculates !!

Then there was the contrast between the reaction to Philip and Eurydike's deaths, and the non-reaction to the "foreign woman's" death and non-burial.

Amyntoros wrote:
Must admit that, although I'm trying very hard to be objective, I do have difficulty with the suggestion that Alexander IV was placed in 'safe custody" until circumstances changed. I prefer to believe that it was primarily his increasing age rather than any outside circumstances that brought about his death.
I used that expression because Diodorus says "custody", and it certainly wasn't a punishment or imprisonment, nor did Alexander come to any harm for many years - he was kept safe, for the obvious reason that to control the legitimate King, acknowledged as such by all the Diadochi, was a great advantage to Kassander. His age may have been a factor in his murder, but he wasn't due to come of age until 305 or so, so why was he murdered around 310, and not sooner, or later ? The circumstances had changed with the peace treaty between Kassander, Lysimachus, Ptolemy and Antigonus, which expressly recognised Alexander's rights as legitimate King on his coming of age - an awkward fact for all four, who had an obvious way of avoiding the issue, which duly occurred.....

To believe that Kassander alone intended to murder Alexander all along, and then waited some six years to carry it out is not really credible.

Amyntoros wrote:
Yes, sometimes one can recognize perhaps a Roman influence, and sometimes the sources disagree and we are forced to choose, but I am very wary of dismissing something as supposition unless there are very convincing reasons - with confirmation from more than one source - and I'm not seeing that.
There are dilemmas both when we have conflicting sources, and when there is only a single source. In the former case, we can only choose the most probable version ( which ain't necessarily always so! ), and in the latter we seemingly have no choice. But that does not mean we look at our single source uncritically, or naively take everything as gospel (not even the gospels! ) Those matters I have referred to as 'supposed' or 'alleged' are just that, and in each case inherently unlikely in themselves. e.g. if your relative had been brutally murdered, would you need "urging" to come forward and accuse them in court? How could our source know of Kassander's private thoughts and fears, other than his own speculation ? [ Incidently I am likely wrong about the 'paides', but not for the reasons Agesilaos gives - he's wrong too! I'll explain that in a response to his post.]

As to opinion, it is surely clear from the language of my post that I am simply throwing doubt upon those matters by use of 'alleged' and 'supposed' - I don't make any categorical claims, and propaganda can be made of true incidents as well as imaginary ones.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by agesilaos »

Just to assist those looking for Rathman, the correct spelling is Rathmann and his paper is described thus in the introduction
STUDIA HELLENISTICA 53
THE AGE OF THE SUCCESSORS AND THE CREATION OF THE HELLENISTIC KINGDOMS(323-276B.C.)
edited by
Hans HAUBEN and Alexander MEEUS

Diodorus’ working methods and the historiographical persona he creates for him-self are the object of Rathmann’s study [1]. Arguing that Diodorus usually relied on one source at a time for long stretches of his work and did less research than his methodological statements would have us believe, he concludes that the presence of different tendencies (such as material of Ptolemaic or Seleucid origin) in Diodorus’ account of the Successors is a strong indication for his use of an intermediary source, probably Agatharchides of Knidos.

1. Diodor und seine Quellen. Zur Kompilationstechnik des Historiographen.

Introduction pp 1-2
This has been Paralus' position all along, that Diodoros strains Hieronymos through an intermediate author; maybe Xenophon can point to the passages in the main article which contradict Paralus' position?

I look forward to finding out where I have gone wrong and hope all goes well with the op.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:Almost four thousand words by three posters to respond to!! :shock: Obviously I don't have the time to respond in detail to this deluge of words...
This is a common refrain. Contributors prepare detailed, well argued posts with full source citations only to have them offhandedly described as a "deluge of words". If you cannot, or wish not to, deal with the detail raised in considered, argued posts, then please simply acknowledge so.
Xenophon wrote:Paralus wrote:
It is not conceivable that Hieronymus, writing under Antigonid patronage, could so destroy the historical perception of the founder of the Antigonid dysnasty - especially while at the same time fawning over his great enemy, Ptolemy. You really need to provide some cogent source analysis which embraces this fact for fact it remains – uncomfortable though it is.
Shome mishtake there, shurely? What Hieronymous may or may not have written according to you is speculation, not fact.
No. I here rely on the widely known ancient view - as clearly expressed by Pausanias - that Hieronymus could not write against his patrons.
Xenophon wrote:For example, if he was perhaps not as glowing about Antigonus as his other two masters, and even if he actually disliked him (another unknowable), that would not have stopped him doing Antigonus' bidding and denigrating Cassander (Antigonus' former ally) around the time of the "Greek Freedoms" speech - whom Hieronymous would not care about.
Monophthalmos bade Hieronymus to denigrate Kassandros? A modicum of evidence would be nice. Perhaps you mean Gonatas bade Hieronymus to denigrate Kassandros? If so, did Gonatas also bid Hieronymus to blacken his grandfather and his historical portrait?

Xenophon wrote: Moreover, many scholars don't believe that the flattering sections on Ptolemy, a known Eumenid enemy [ e.g. Seibert, Bosworth and recently Rathman 2014] come from Hieronymous, but were rather obtained by Diodorus from Alexandrian sources during his sojourn in Egypt. ( see also Jane Hornblower, "Hieronymous of Cardia" ) Perhaps you should do some source analysis of your own.
And Lane-Fox has opined that Hieronymus wrote these passages while in Ptolemaic custody post Ipsos...

It appears your conviction that "it has been ‘communis opinio’ that Hieronymous is the most likely source of Diodorus for Books XVIII-XX inclusive, but not absolutely certain, for the best part of 100 years, hence my conservative ‘likely’. If thereafter I say ‘Hieronymous’, that is merely for convenience" is wavering. Perhaps, as I have done, you might do me (and readers of the forum) the favour of actual references here so as we might read these views ourselves?

Either way, I do have Rathmann. He argues that Diodorus utilised a single source for 18-20 and that source was not Hieronymus directly but rather an intermediary. "...Diodorus' intention to cover a large span of time in a rather brief work required a purposeful selection of material from many sources. To manage the abundance of of information and to give more structure to his own writing, the author used intermediary sources - as for example has been shown in the case of Agatharchides" going on to say that "since he [Diodorus] took the easier option of consulting intermediary sources, which already were compilations, the search for those authors (used by the intermediaries) will be complicated further" (Rathman, Diodor und Seine Quellen Zur Kompilationstechnik Des Histororiographen, in Hauben/Meeus, The Age of the Successors and the Creation of the Hellenistic Kingdoms, Peters, 2014, 49-50).

Given that you have this, it might also pay to read Landucci Gattinoni's contribution on Antipatros' Settlement of Triparadeisos (33-48) in which she analyses and compares the accounts of Diodorus and Arria (via Photius). Landucci Gattinoni detects two traditions in these sources with that of Diodorus showing a distinct Antipatrid flavour that Arrian does not display.

That Diodorus combined several sources himself is not very likely. His work shows the use of a single source throughout (until that source finished and then another replaced it - Book 16 is the example). Arguments that Diodorus combined a pro-Ptolemaic source - to be inserted at chosen moments - stems from those who see Diodorus 18-20 as a mirror of the Kardian's work. This allows for Hieronymus to be the direct source with occasional additions from this pro-Ptolemaic source. It is this that underpins Bosworth's view that "it cannot be denied that Hieronymus repeatedly emphasized Antigonus’ ambitions and had no sympathy for them" (Legacy of Alexander, Oxford, 2002, 197 n. 109). Again, it is not conceivable that Hieronymus could so depict the founder of the dynasty in such a light. It is also highly unlikely that Hieronymus could continually describe Antigonos Monophthalmos as a rebel to the monarchy and the opposite to what a good king should be no matter what he might think of him personally. Gonatas certainly took his dynastic legitimacy seriously and strove to have his forebears seen as legitimate as the Antigonid progonoi monument on Delos clearly demonstrates. Here there were some twenty statues, one of which was of a Perdikkas. Clearly Argead "ancestors" were included as well as the discredited Monophthalmos.

I too hope the operation is nothing of a serious nature and all goes well.
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
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Several points to address here, I'll start with the alleged Pages, and here I can help Amyntoros with solid evidence

Diod XIX 53 iv
ἀπέσπασε δὲ καὶ τοὺς εἰωθότας παῖδας συντρέφεσθαι καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν οὐκέτι βασιλικήν
Oldfather translates
Also he took away the pages who, according to custom, were being brought up as companions of the boy


The error in translation is quite plain, misled by his knowledge of Macedonian institutions Oldfather translates 'παῖδες' as Pages, despite the fact that the description does not fit; the Pages were not he boyhood companions of princes; had he translated straight forwardly as 'boys' the error disappears. These are the 'syntrophoi' of whom we also hear under Philip II, where Alexander's syntrophoi Ptolemy, Harpalos, Laomedon and Erygios are mentioned, will have too check Heckel's Marshals for refs.

So Diodoros' source is no fool after all.
Your 'explanation' on the basis of the ambiguity concerning the word 'paides' - which can indeed mean children, boys or girls, who have yet to come of age - is ingenious but incorrect, for Diodorus qualifies the word by making it clear he is referring to the Macedonian custom/institution of companions to the King - so Oldfather's translation is the correct one.

However, it is possible that Alexander may have had 'paides' for there is an Attic inscription( IG II 561) and literary fragment of Arrian [Succ I.38] that shows that the usual 7 'somatophylakes' were appointed to the 'Kings' ( and incidently demonstrates that they were in fact joint co-Kings ). Philip, as senior, received four and Alexander three ( two short papers by Waldemar Heckel and Stanley Burstein are available on JSTOR regarding the inscripted decree ). The three somatophylakes would have been part of the young King's court, and hence Diodorus' detail about him having paides is probably also correct.

Agesilaos wrote:
Now the Macedonian Assembly was NOT just soldiers in arms, Curtius VI 8 xxv.....Nor did Kassandros army consist of Macedonians, it will have been mainly mercenary. It is quite fallacious, therefore to invent a solidly pro-Kassandros Assembly.
Since all male Makedones/citizens were soldiers, and the assembly consisted of Makedones [whether carrying their arms or not] I don't think you have a point. Whether the army was mainly mercenary or not, there were obviously quite enough Makedones present to hear the case, and it is a "crowd" of them who condemn her to death, as Diodorus specifically tells us.[D.S XIX.51.2] - so neither 'fallacious' nor 'invented'.
...the Macedonians only went over to him once the deserters from Pydna had spread news of Olympias' straits and Aeacides' invasion had been dissipated (Diod XIX 36 v).
That is also incorrect. In the course of Cassander's first campaign success in Macedon the year before, many had joined him,[D.S.XVIII.75.1] and of course others since, and his initial force also likely contained Macedonians. The allegiance of this successful army was certainly not "new and untested". It was Olympias who had few Macedonian supporters, not Kassander.
Nor was he king, and there is a possibility that he required the relatives to bring charges as he could not, though the distancing of himself from possible accusations of simple revenge may have played a political part. Whilst revenge-killing and blood-feud were standard Macedonian fare Kassandros would have realised that 'Blood will have blood!', by bringing a class action, as such, he makes himself a protector of the common good rather than an outraged brother.
It does not make any sense that other Makedones could accuse their reltives murderess, but he could not - he had all the rights they had, and I doubt that 'legal niceties' concerned him in any event. Your remaining comments I'd agree are quite likely.
...The so-called secret plan, cannot have been that secret, the offer was made via messengers .
Do you seriously think a secret murder plan would be confided to humble messengers? Not likely! They will have simply conveyed Kassander's offer.
How you can bring in the 'treatment of her corpse' when you have covered pages claiming that the Kastas skeleton cannot be her because of the want of scavenging just amuses me, you did correct me over claiming you suffered from cognitive dissonance, and you were clearly right; holding mutually opposed positions does not seem to trouble you in the least.
I'm afraid you read what I wrote somewhat carelessly. I didn't doubt that Kassander mis-treated her corpse. I included it as another example of painting Kassander in a poor light, given Greek attitudes toward the dead , and proper burial ritual.
Of course if one wishes to simply write whatever one likes with no reference to the sources one can claim source bias and simply proceed, I do not call that History, however.
That is another absurdity. I don't write "whatever one likes", but equally I don't swallow source material hook, line and sinker without regarding it critically either, especially when we have nothing to test it against. One should bear in mind the principle 'testis unus testis nullus'/ “one witness is no witness”. One source of information means, essentially, that we have no information at all, because it cannot be tested and must therefore be looked at critically .
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:Your 'explanation' on the basis of the ambiguity concerning the word 'paides' - which can indeed mean children, boys or girls, who have yet to come of age - is ingenious but incorrect, for Diodorus qualifies the word by making it clear he is referring to the Macedonian custom/institution of companions to the King - so Oldfather's translation is the correct one.
It is indeed mistranslated for Diodorus writes that these are the children (παῖδας) who by custom (εἰωθότας) were brought up with (συντρέφεσθαι) Alexander IV. Diodorus does not refer to the 'royal pages' - those youths whose duty was to serve the king essentially as 'slaves'. These, the paides basilikoi, were teenage sons of nobles brought to court to serve the king, not to grow up with the infant heir/king. These are, without any doubt, the syntrophoi - what we might call 'creche mates', the fictive 'brothers' who grew up with the king - not the royal pages.
Xenophon wrote:However, it is possible that Alexander may have had 'paides' for there is an Attic inscription( IG II 561) and literary fragment of Arrian [Succ I.38] that shows that the usual 7 'somatophylakes' were appointed to the 'Kings' ( and incidently demonstrates that they were in fact joint co-Kings ). Philip, as senior, received four and Alexander three ( two short papers by Waldemar Heckel and Stanley Burstein are available on JSTOR regarding the inscripted decree ). The three somatophylakes would have been part of the young King's court, and hence Diodorus' detail about him having paides is probably also correct.
The arguments for the ubiquitous Philip mentioned in that inscription being a somatophylax of Alexander IV are possibly just as ingenious. While that is not impossible, Wheatley's response to these papers is wise. The papers referred to are:


I. G. II² 561 and the Court of Alexander IV, S M Burstein,
IG II² 561 and the Status of Alexander IV, W Heckel,
Problems in Analysing Source Documents in Ancient History: The Case of Philip, Adviser to Demetrius Poliorcetes, 314-312 B.C., and IG ii2 561, Pat Wheatley.

I have the first two should anyone wish to read same. The Wheatley paper is freely accessible.
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
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by agesilaos »

Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus

Paralus has already demonstrated the error in your ‘reasoning’ but to support my interpretation here is evidence of the Macedonian institution of syntrophoi, and my thanks for his references:
Ἀλέξανδρος ἔτι παῖς ὤν, πολλὰ τοῦ Φιλίππου κατορθοῦντος, οὐκ ἔχαιρεν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς συντρεφομένους ἔλεγε παῖδας, ‘ἐμοὶ δὲ ὁ πατὴρ οὐδὲν ἀπολείψει.’ τῶν δὲ παίδων λεγόντων ὅτι ‘σοὶ ταῦτα κτᾶται’ ‘τί δὲ ὄφελος,’ εἶπεν, ‘ἐὰν ἔχω μὲν πολλὰ πράξω δὲ μηδέν;
ALEXANDER. While Alexander was a boy, Philip had great success in his affairs, at which he did not rejoice, but told the children that were brought up with him, My father will leave me nothing to do. The children answered, Your father gets all this for you. But what good, saith he, will it do me, if I possess much and do nothing?
Plutarch 'Sayings of Kings and Commanders' 27
By your logic are we to understand that Alexander, παῖς, is a page, or is the context not Macedonian enough? You will note his playmates are termed τοὺς συντρεφομένους ... παῖδας, just as Alexander IV's are Τοὺς ... παῖδας συντρέφεσθαι. These are the syntrophoi of Alexander III, Polybios contains references that demonstrate the practice continued in Antigonid Macedonia and the other Hellenistic kingdoms.
V 9 [4] κατέγραφον δ᾽ εἰς τοὺς τοίχους καὶ τὸν περιφερόμενον στίχον, ἤδη τότε τῆς ἐπιδεξιότητος τῆς Σάμου φυομένης, ὃς ἦν υἱὸς μὲν Χρυσογόνου, σύντροφος δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως
On the walls also they wrote the celebrated line composed by Samus, the son of Chrysogonus, a syntrophos of the king {Philip V], whose genius was then beginning to manifest itself. The line was this— “"Seest thou the path the bolt divine has sped?"
V 82 [8] Ἀντίοχος δὲ τοὺς μὲν ἑξήκοντα τῶν ἐλεφάντων, ἐφ᾽ ὧν ἦν Φίλιππος ὁ σύντροφος αὐτοῦ, πρὸ τοῦ δεξιοῦ κέρατος προέστησε, καθ᾽ ὃ ποιεῖσθαι τὸν κίνδυνον αὐτὸς ἔμελλε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ τὸν Πτολεμαῖον:
Antiochus also placed sixty of his elephants commanded by his syntrophos Philip in front of his right wing, on which he was to be present personally, to fight opposite Ptolemy.

XV 33[11] κατὰ δὲ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον σύντροφοι τῆς Ἀρσινόης γεγενημέναι τινὲς παιδίσκαι, πυθόμεναι παραγεγονέναι τὸν Φιλάμμωνα τριταῖον ἀπὸ Κυρήνης τὸν ἐπιστάντα τῷ φόνῳ τῆς βασιλίσσης, ὥρμησαν ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ,
At the same time some young girls who had been brought up with Arsinoe, having learnt that Philammon, the chief agent in the murder of that Queen, had arrived three days before from Cyrene, rushed to his house; forced their way in; killed Philammon with stones and sticks; strangled his infant son; and, not content with this, dragged his wife naked into the street and put her to death.

XXII 22 1 ὅτι Ἀριστόνικος ὁ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου τοῦ βασιλέως Αἰγύπτου εὐνοῦχος μὲν ἦν, ἐκ παιδίου δ᾽ ἐγεγόνει σύντροφοςτῷ βασιλεῖ.
Aristonicus was one of the eunuchs of Ptolemy, king of Egypt, and had been brought up from childhood with the king.
XXXI 13 [2] ὁ δὲ σύντροφος Ἀπολλώνιος ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτῷ μετεῖχε τῆς ἐπιβολῆς: δυεῖν δ᾽ ὑπαρχόντων ἀδελφῶν, Μελεάγρου καὶ Μενεσθέως, τούτοις ἐκοινώσατο τὴν πρᾶξιν, ἄλλῳ δ᾽ οὐδενὶ τῶν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καίτοι πλειόνων ὄντων.
His syntrophos Apollonius took part in this expedition; and Demetrius also confided his secret to the two brothers of Apollonius, Meleager and Menestheus, but to no one else of all his suite, though that was numerous.
XXXII 15 [10] καὶ καταπειράσας τῆς Ἐλαίας καί τινας προσβολὰς ποιησάμενος,οὐδὲν δὲ πράττειν δυνάμενος διὰ τὸ Σώσανδρον τὸν τοῦ βασιλέως σύντροφον εἰσεληλυθότα μετὰ στρατιωτῶνεἴργειν αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐπιβολάς, ἀπῆρεν ἐπὶ Θυατείρων.
He attempted to take Elaea, and made some assaults upon it; but being unable to effect anything, owing to Sosander, the king's foster-brother, having thrown himself into the town with an army and repelling his assaults, he marched off towards Thyateira.

The tradition, or custom, of Royal syntrophoi survived whereas that of the Royal Pages did not. Arrian tells us the duties of the Royal Boys

IV 13 i
ἐκ Φιλίππου ἦν ἤδη καθεστηκὸς τῶν ἐν τέλει Μακεδόνων τοὺς παῖδας ὅσοι ἐς ἡλικίαν ἐμειρακιεύοντο καταλέγεσθαι ἐς θεραπείαν τοῦ βασιλέως, τά τε περὶ τὴν ἄλλην δίαιταν τοῦ σώματος διακονεῖσθαι βασιλεῖ καὶ κοιμώμενον φυλάσσειν τούτοις ἐπετέτραπτο. καὶ ὁπότε ἐξελαύνοι βασιλεύς, τοὺς ἵππους παρὰ τῶν ἱπποκόμων δεχόμενοι ἐκεῖνοι προσῆγον καὶ ἀνέβαλλον οὗτοι βασιλέα τὸν Περσικὸν τρόπον καὶ τῆς ἐπὶ θήρᾳ φιλοτιμίας βασιλεῖ κοινωνοὶ ἦσαν

IT was a custom current in Philip’s day, that the sons of those Macedonians who had enjoyed high office, should, as soon as they reached the age of puberty, be selected to attend the king’s court. These youths were entrusted with the general attendance on the king’s person and the protection of his body while he was asleep. Whenever the king rode out, some of them received the horses from the grooms, and brought them to him, and others assisted him to mount in the Persian fashion. They were also partners of the king in the emulation of the chase
This makes no mention of being the King’s companions and the role is largely superfluous for a six-year old.

There are several problems with both Bernstein and Heckel's interpretations. Bernstein links the 'eunoia', benefactions, of Philip and Iolaos with '...Polyperchon's attempts to woo Athens in 318 (Diodorous 16.66.2-3.)' ; which seems attractive until one remembers that at this time Alexander IV was in Epeiros with Rhoxane and Olympias and that the king with Polyperchon was Philip III. Were these men the somatophylakes of Alexander then they ought to be with him in Epeiros.

Heckel assumes that all of the somatophylakes of Alexander were honoured by Athens, and that all those of Philip III were named in Photius' epitome of Arrian. Neither is a given and probably stretches the source material too much. Since, it would seem that whenever a somatophylax was deputed to another command he was replaced, and such are generally, though not always, noted in Arrian 'Anabasis', it must have been important to the functioning on the group that the number remained at seven. I follows that both kings would have seven somatophylakes, as they were not always together and it also allows for twice the patronage. Nor is the restoration of the third somatophylax certain, it could be a patronym just as easily as a kai followed by the third name that is to be restored, there is immediately a problem here, if the thirteen spaces after Philippos contain a patronym then Iolaos must also have a patronym and we only have two men, conversely if the kappa is the beginning of kai in line 7 then there must be kai and a fourth name in the 13 space gap.
Regions : Attica (IG I-III)
IG II² 561 IG II² 560 IG II² 562
Att. — stoich. 25 — 307/6-301/0
See also: SEG 31:80; SEG 32:101a; SEG 36:161
․․․․σ — — — — — — — — — — — — —
[․․κ]αὶ σ[υμπρόεδροι· ἔδοξε τῆι β]-
[ουλ]ῆι κ[αὶ τῶι δήμωι· Στρατοκλῆ]-
[ς Εὐ]θ[υ]δή[μ]ο[υ Διομεεὺς εἶπε· ἐπε]-
5
[ιδὴ] Φίλιππος #⁷․․․․․13․․․․․․
[․ κα]ὶ Ἰόλαος κ[αὶ ․․6․․․ γενόμε]-
[νοι] σωματοφ[ύλακες Ἀλεξάνδρο]-
[υ το]ῦ βασιλέ[ως ἔν τε τῶι πρόσθε]-
[ν χ]ρόν[ω]ι δ[ιετέλουν εὖνοι ὄντε]-
10
[ς τῶ]ι δή[μω]ι τ[ῶι Ἀθηναίων καὶ νῦ]-
[ν ․․․]ι․․ στρ[ατευόμενοι μετ’ Ἀν]-
[τι]γόνου κα[ὶ Δημητρίου? — — — —]


Without the restorations
․․․․σ — — — — — — — — — — — — —
αὶ σ-
ῆι κ-
θδήο-
5
Φίλιππος #⁷․․․․․13․․․․․․
ὶ Ἰόλαος κ-
σωματοφ-
ῦ βασιλέ-
ρόνι δ-
10
ι δήι τ-
ι․․ στρ-
γόνου κα
A photograph of the squeeze can be found here
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/Athens/IGII/500series/561m.jpg


Would not want to drown you in words so I’ll leave it there pro tem.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by agesilaos »

Since all male Makedones/citizens were soldiers, and the assembly consisted of Makedones [whether carrying their arms or not] I don't think you have a point. Whether the army was mainly mercenary or not, there were obviously quite enough Makedones present to hear the case, and it is a "crowd" of them who condemn her to death, as Diodorus specifically tells us.[D.S XIX.51.2] - so neither 'fallacious' nor 'invented'.
The usual bold unreferenced assertion; in fact there is precious little evidence for any constitutional rights or institutions everything was at the king’s whim. All Macedonians were liable for military service (this is implied by Alexander’s ability to commute that duty )
I 16 v
γονεῦσι δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ παισὶ τῶν τε κατὰτὴν χώραν ἀτέλειαν ἔδωκε καὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι ἢ τῷ σώματι λειτουργίαι ἢ κατὰ τὰς κτήσεις ἑκάστων εἰσφοραί,
To their parents and children he granted exemption from imposts on agricultural produce, and he relieved them from all personal services and taxes upon property
There is a world of difference between being liable for military service and being a soldier, however, the more so in a formation such as a pike phalanx which demands extensive training. Those ‘soldiers’ without regular training are what we would call civilians and Curtius ‘vulgus’.
Diodoros XIX 51 ii
2 They did as he had ordered; and, although Olympias was not present and had none to speak in her defence, the Macedonians condemned her to death.6 Cassander, however, sent some of his friends to Olympias advising her to escape secretly, promising to provide a ship for her and to carry her to Athens
.

51 i would seem more relevant where the body before which she is to be tried is ἐν κοινῇ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐκκλησίᾳ - a general assembly of Macedonians, to adopt a non-constitutional translation. This is explicitly not simply a military tribunal, it includes any local Macedonians, over whom Kassandros had no hold. This is emphasised by Diodoros’ use in verse 4 of τὸ πλῆθος ; the Greek equivalent of ‘vulgus’; the mob, hardly a suitable appellation for a military assembly . So the fallacious invention stands :lol:

The fact that Kassandros risked this demonstrates the instability of his position, he must have needed the display of a process rather than the exercise of arbitrary power, because he was in no position to safely exercise such a power.

This is a critical look at the sources, not ‘swallowing what they say hook line and sinker’. :evil:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Paralus »

Agesilaos wrote:The usual bold unreferenced assertion; in fact there is precious little evidence for any constitutional rights or institutions everything was at the king’s whim.
Just how ‘constitutional’ the Macedonian state was is another very thorny question. There are those (Hammond, Rzepka, Hatzopoulos for example) who claim it was a Macedonian version of the English constitutional monarchy while others reject this almost in toto (e.g. Errington, Borza). I’m not certain it’s an either / or situation but rather than something dead in the middle, more leaning to the Errington / Borza view. Roisman’s more nuanced view that the Macedonian “assembly” had, in reality, very little power and only came somewhat to the fore when there was a weak king or division in the leadership is very close to the money. This is based on the evidence for the Successors (which is where most of it comes from).

One can make far too much of the terminology. Diodorus is no technical writer and uses koine ekklesia four times to describe this so called ‘assembly of the Makedones’ (18.39.4; 19.15.1, 51.1-2,61.1-3). We can eliminate 18.15.1 as it refers to the leaders of the satrapal alliance meeting. The others are pertinent though. 18.39.4 describes Triparadeisos and clearly relates to the soldiers and their grievances. It is interesting that Arrian describes this as ta plethe. I would not, then, invest too much in Diodorus’ use of plethos in our current instance.

19.61.1-3 is rather instructive though. Diodorus describes Antigonos calling his version of a koine ekklesia. Here Diodorus notes that he called together both the soldiers and the others in the camp (te stratiōtōn kai tōn parepidēmountōn). Didorus is hardly to be presumed as making such a distinction and so his source has indicated the nature of this ‘assembly’; an assembly which included everybody. The reason is that Antigonos wanted his programme (and accusations) ‘fully franked’ by all those present and who mattered. Such conferred him full legitimacy. What this indicates is that koine ekklesia is not to be considered a technical usage by Diodorus but a more general term.

We come to 18.51. Here Olympias has been ‘tried’ before Kassandros’ koine ekklesia and found guilty. At this ‘assembly’ she was not allowed to defend herself and nor was she able to have anyone speak on her behalf – a point that Diodorus notes and, as I’ve said elsewhere, because it is not usual. Olympias then states that she is willing to be judged by all the Macedonians. This is clearly a different forum to that which Kassandros has cooked up and, given 18.61.1-2, would near certainly mean all the Macedonians rather than the select ‘assembly’ of Kassandros where her right to a defence was withheld. That Kassandros will not have a bar of this but attempts to secretly kill her indicates that his position is nowhere near as strong as Xenophon claims
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
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Xenophon »

Kassander and the paides of Alexander IV

Paralus wrote:
Trogus/Justin wrote:where Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was, who would be no small support to their party, while the good will of their countrymen would be with them, from respect to the names of Alexander and Philippus.


We note that Olympias is considered apart from the respect for Alexander and Philip. We also note that Olympias, herself, "would be no small support" for the Perdikkan cause.
Some confusion here, I think. Diodorus is reporting what the Perdikkans believed – that Olympias and her prestige would be useful support. In fact, as subsequent events demonstrated, having the support of Olympias was of no use at all. Just ask Polyperchon ( who presumably also believed, mistakenly, that her support would be useful.) We are here concerned with the facts and events, not what various people may have believed.
I might as easily claim source bias against Olympias on this line of “reasoning” citing the overturned graves and murders of Kassandros' supporters as “untruths”, exaggerated or “propaganda”.
....and you would be right to do so, for as most seem to agree, Olympias too suffered from ‘black propaganda’, though not the events you refer to.
As easily as you can decide the king and his mother were simply in “safe keeping”. Diodorus is clear that Kassandros removed the young king’ssyntrophoi along with any other mark of royal status. The act clearly delegitimises the young AlexanderIV. The king(s) had been the wards of four regents (ἐπιμελητὴν δὲ τῆς βασιλείας): Perdikkas; Peithon and Arrhidaeus; Polyperchon) if we discount Antigonos’ several months before Antipatros removed the kings from his custody. None of these regents are ever attested to have imprisoned or, more to the point, removed all the royal trappings from the king as did Kassandros.
Again, no-one, then or now can discern Kassander’s motivations. If Kassander removed the ‘Royal court’ from around Alexander, it might for example have been simply because he thought that a small boy certainly did not need such trappings, and he did not need the expense - later to be ‘beaten up’ in Antigonus’ propaganda. The act does not of itself ‘delegitimise’ Alexander as lawful King. Indeed, all the Diadochi claimed to be ruling ‘in the King’s name’ from 317 onward ( when Alexander’s co-King Philip was murdered), and the peace settlement of 311 confirmed the status quo: Cassander as General of Europe,Ptolemy in Egypt, Lysimachus in Thrace, and Antigonus as ‘first in Asia’, all until Alexander IV reached his age of majority – thus officially recognising Alexander as the lawful and legitimate King. Even after Alexander’s subsequent secret murder, the Diadochi hesitated to proclaim themselves ‘Kings’, and of these, IIRC, Kassander was the last to proclaim himself as a King.
It remains highly problematical to the ‘Hieronyman industry’ that a court historian of the Antigonids could actually write such material. As I’ve been at pains to point out, Hieronymus, working under Antigonid patronage, can hardly have produced such a denigratory portrait of the dynasty’s founder all the while producing such encomiastic descriptions of that founder’s great enemies.
Yes, a manifest contradiction and ‘contra’ Pausanias’ remarks. Perhaps you have an explanation to this ‘unknowable unknown’ conundrum ? Yet the source’s bias against Kassander is clear.....which is what is relevant here, not his attitude to Antigonus.
No. I here rely on the widely known ancient view - as clearly expressed by Pausanias - that Hieronymus could not write against his patrons.
What makes you think that Pausanias’ view was widely held ? Especially since his view is directly contradicted by the Diodorus that has come down to us?
All this really belongs in a separate thread “Diodorus’ views of Antigonus” or more broadly “Diodorus sources and views on the Diadochi”. Easy enough to ‘cut and paste’ the relevant sections of your posts......

Paralus wrote:
It is indeed mistranslated for Diodorus writes that these are the children (παῖδας) who by custom (εἰωθότας) were brought up with (συντρέφεσθαι) Alexander IV. Diodorus does not refer to the 'royal pages' - those youths whose duty was to serve the king essentially as 'slaves'. These, the paides basilikoi, were teenage sons of nobles brought to court to serve the king, not to grow up with the infant heir/king. These are, without any doubt, the syntrophoi - what we might call 'creche mates', the fictive 'brothers' who grew up with the king - not the royal pages.
Your distinction is a little too black-and-white for my taste. I would hardly call the ‘paides basilikoi’ slaves, and I very much doubt they would see themselves in such a light! ( even if Curtius [VIII.6.2], likely repeating Greek slander, makes this comparison). They were also table companions of the King, trusted with intimate duties, companions in the hunt etc. It was they who did the ‘growing up’ rather than the King, seemingly. Still, as I pointed out earlier teenagers were hardly appropriate companions for a 7 yr old boy, and I accept your and Agesilaos’ views that it was likely ‘syntrophi’ who are meant. A pity Diodorus did not use this term rather than the ambiguous ‘paides’.

By the way I share Wheatley’s views on the difficulties of ancient history, and alluded to same in earlier posts. Readers of his paper will readily understand why source material, meagre as it is, gives rise to constant debate.....

edited to correct nested quotes, grammar and typos
Last edited by Xenophon on Thu Aug 27, 2015 4:16 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:Paralus wrote:
Trogus/Justin wrote:where Olympias, the mother of Alexander, was, who would be no small support to their party, while the good will of their countrymen would be with them, from respect to the names of Alexander and Philippus.

We note that Olympias is considered apart from the respect for Alexander and Philip. We also note that Olympias, herself, "would be no small support" for the Perdikkan cause.
Some confusion here, I think. Diodorus is reporting what the Perdikkans believed – that Olympias and her prestige would be useful support. In fact, as subsequent events demonstrated, having the support of Olympias was of no use at all. Just ask Polyperchon ( who presumably also believed, mistakenly, that her support would be useful.) We are here concerned with the facts and events as they transpired, not what various people may have believed beforehand.
Confusion indeed. It is Trogus/Justin who reports this, not Diodorus. Contra your view that we should not be concerned with "what various people may have believed beforehand", this passage shows quite clearly that the Macedonians saw Olympias as an advantage to their campaign. They were proven correct when Eurydike's troops deserted her just as the Macedonians will have flocked to Perdikkas with the kings and Olympias in tow. In the event he never got there.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:It remains highly problematical to the ‘Hieronyman industry’ that a court historian of the Antigonids could actually write such material. As I’ve been at pains to point out, Hieronymus, working under Antigonid patronage, can hardly have produced such a denigratory portrait of the dynasty’s founder all the while producing such encomiastic descriptions of that founder’s great enemies.

Yes, a manifest contradiction and ‘contra’ Pausanias’ remarks.You seem to have tied yourself in knots of contradiction. Perhaps you have an explanation to this ‘unknowable unknown’ conundrum ? Yet the source’s bias against Kassander is clear.....which is what is relevant here, not his attitude to Antigonus.
And from that it appears you’ve failed to understand the argument in its entirety.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote: No. I here rely on the widely known ancient view - as clearly expressed by Pausanias - that Hieronymus could not write against his patrons.

What makes you think that Pausanias’ view was widely held ? Especially since his view is directly contradicted by the Diodorus that has come down to us? Pausanias is clearly incorrect for some reason. A frequent mistake you make is to take the opinion presented by a source as fact.....
The fact that Pausanias actually wrote that such was the case:
Pausanias (1.9.8) wrote: But this Hieronymus has a reputation generally of being biased against all the kings except Antigonus, and of being unfairly partial towards him.

Contra your allegation, I do not report a source’s “opinion” and present it as fact. Pausanias is plainly reporting that in his time Hieronymus had the reputation of being biased toward the Antigonids. Pausanias is not saying that “in my opinion Hieronymus was biased”. That is a poor reading of the passage.
Last edited by Paralus on Thu Aug 27, 2015 6:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: The occupant of Tomb III

Post by Xenophon »

agesilaos wrote:
Since all male Makedones/citizens were soldiers, and the assembly consisted of Makedones [whether carrying their arms or not] I don't think you have a point. Whether the army was mainly mercenary or not, there were obviously quite enough Makedones present to hear the case, and it is a "crowd" of them who condemn her to death, as Diodorus specifically tells us.[D.S XIX.51.2] - so neither 'fallacious' nor 'invented'.
The usual bold unreferenced assertion; in fact there is precious little evidence for any constitutional rights or institutions everything was at the king’s whim. All Macedonians were liable for military service (this is implied by Alexander’s ability to commute that duty )
I 16 v
γονεῦσι δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ παισὶ τῶν τε κατὰτὴν χώραν ἀτέλειαν ἔδωκε καὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι ἢ τῷ σώματι λειτουργίαι ἢ κατὰ τὰς κτήσεις ἑκάστων εἰσφοραί,
To their parents and children he granted exemption from imposts on agricultural produce, and he relieved them from all personal services and taxes upon property
Indeed all Makedones, i.e. citizens were liable for service. I'd agree with you that 'constitutional rights'etc were essentially what the King said they were. On the other hand, even an absolute ruler may need to seek the approval of his subjects, particularly if it was of a thorny subject, and even Alexander recognised this, so it was more than just a 'rubber stamp'.

There is a world of difference between being liable for military service and being a soldier, however, the more so in a formation such as a pike phalanx which demands extensive training. Those ‘soldiers’ without regular training are what we would call civilians and Curtius ‘vulgus’.
This is a very weak argument. All Makedones underwent regular training, as we know from various references in our sources, and all appear to have served in rotation generally, but exceptionally up to a 'maximum callout'. Nor do the manouevres of a pike phalanx require extensive training - as you might know if you tried them. Peter Connolly was able to train re-enactors in phalanx drill in an hour or two , to the point where they were confident enough to spontaneously charge at the run. It ain't rocket science ! In fact it would be no surprise if Macedonian boys played at drill, and could perform it before their first call-up.

Diodoros XIX 51 ii
2 They did as he had ordered; and, although Olympias was not present and had none to speak in her defence, the Macedonians condemned her to death.6 Cassander, however, sent some of his friends to Olympias advising her to escape secretly, promising to provide a ship for her and to carry her to Athens
.

51 i would seem more relevant where the body before which she is to be tried is ἐν κοινῇ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐκκλησίᾳ - a general assembly of Macedonians, to adopt a non-constitutional translation. This is explicitly not simply a military tribunal, it includes any local Macedonians, over whom Kassandros had no hold. This is emphasised by Diodoros’ use in verse 4 of τὸ πλῆθος ; the Greek equivalent of ‘vulgus’; the mob, hardly a suitable appellation for a military assembly . So the fallacious invention stands :lol:
Another completely tenuous argument. Since the 'citizen-soldiers' are one and the same , there is no distinction such as you are attempting to make, between a military tribunal and a civil one!!

And which 'local Macedonians' are you referring to ? Pydna was a relatively small place. Furthermore up until it was taken over by Philip II in 357, it was an independent GREEK city, not Macedonian. So damn few Makedones/citizens then !! Fewer still after Olympias had starved the population and had the corpses thrown over the wall ! [D.S. XIX.49.3-4] Not to mention that her surviving troops had deserted and been sent home. I doubt you'd have been able to find any Makedone supporters of Olympias, and any there might have been were certainly not going do anything or say anything surrounded by Kassander's army!

And of course a body of citizen/soldiers can be described as a 'crowd' or even 'mob' - though the latter is not strictly speaking the general meaning of "πλῆθος", which rather simply generally means a multitude or great number. It can also mean the 'commons', and is used as the Greek equivalent of latin 'plebeians', hence is often used of an assembly of people.

The 'fallacious invention' is definitely neither fallacious nor invented ! :lol: :lol:
The fact that Kassandros risked this demonstrates the instability of his position, he must have needed the display of a process rather than the exercise of arbitrary power, because he was in no position to safely exercise such a power.
...or because having seen what happened to Olympias' support after her regicide, he was being careful not to make that same mistake ?
Post Reply