OOps!....my bad!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:"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.
Not "the Macedonians" who saw Olympias as a prospective advantage, just the leaders of the Perdikkan faction at that point. And apart from the one occasion at Euia, the 'support of Olympias' turned out to be a poisoned chalice. She would certainly have proved as troublesome to Perdikkas as she did to Polyperchon.
One thing we are not told is the full extent of support for the Antipatrids. After all, Antipater had been the 'de facto' ruler of Macedon for 3 years under Philip, then 11 years while Alexander was in Asia, and finally regent of the whole empire for a short time. For many, he was the only ruler they knew, and all they knew of Alexander was that he had headed East, never to return and taken tens of thousands of Makedones with him, almost all of whom also never returned. Antipatrid support might have been considerable, especially if the speed of Kassander's success is anything to go by.
Which argument would that be of the several now running through the thread ? Are you claiming that if Pausanias is correct, then Diodorus' main source for Books XVIII-XX is NOT Hieronymous?And from that it appears you’ve failed to understand the argument in its entirety.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.
Here, the 'opinion' is Pausanias' statement regarding Hieronymous' alleged reputation - which flies in the face of the view that he was the major source for Diodorus Books XVIII-XX. As Wheatley points out, in such cases we cannot prove which is correct, so the matter must remain an 'unknowable unknown', and in the absence of evidence it is futile to speculate.The fact that Pausanias actually wrote that such was the case: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.....
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.