Xenophon wrote:Quite obviously he does NOT count by ‘campaign seasons’ – and never uses the term – and Paralus is simply repeating an oft repeated, but totally incorrect cliché. He uses a system of half-years, which he arbitrarily calls ‘summer’ and ‘winter’, as he specifically says and describes.
One might list a plethora of scholars who refer to this chronological scheme as "campaigning seasons" or "campaigning years" from Smith to the CAH, to Errington, Hauben, Landmark Thucydides (Martin), Wheatly, Meeus and others in between. I would appear to be in good cliche utilising company.
I notice that significantly no ancient authors are in your list. Modern authors ( including you) who equate a “campaigning season” defined as Spring-Summer-Autumn (equals three quarters of a year) with Thucydides “Summer” and “Winter” ( equals half a year) are obviously WRONG!
Incidentally, Errington (Diodorus Siculus and the Chronology of the Early Diadochoi, 320-311 B.C., Hermes, 105. Bd., H. 4 1977, p 479) writes the following of Manni's notion that the source of Diodorus Books 18-19 utilised Macedonian regnal years:
[Manni] introduced the new principle, which he asserted rather than argued, that Diodorus' source -- Hieronymus of Cardia - reckoned his chronology in Macedonian years [...] Manni's assertion that Hieronymus used Macedonian years and that this has confused Diodorus has rightly been rejected by all subsequent writers; for such evidence as we have about Hieronymus' chronological method suggests
strongly that he used a Thucydidean-stvle chronology, and made the natural progression of summers and winters the chronological basis of his narrative.
A Thucydidean- style chronology is NOT a “campaigning season” one, but is difficult to distinguish from an ordinary Macedonian year ( not regnal years) which began in October, and in Thucydidean seasonal terms would run “winter” and “summer” [c.f Athenian years, commencing after the summer solstice in late June aprox which would run “summer” then “winter” – this is how Diodorus runs into difficulty with his dating system of Athenian archon years, contra Errington, who dismisses Manni too easily, for how can one tell at second –hand (via Diodorus) whether Hieronymous is using simple seasons, or a Macedonian year commencing with winter?
Going on to say (p 500):
There is some truth in this [Smith's claim that Diodorus' archon years are campaigning years], in so far as Diodorus seems to have tried to follow the principle of equating a campaigning year with the name of the archon who took office in that year, and indeed he does seem to have followed it reasonably successfully from the archonship of Simonides (3II/3IO) onwards...
This is untrue. No ancient author dated their history by “campaigning seasons” for reasons I have expounded previously. Apart from anything else, the word “campaign” comes from the French for open fields, and hence “campaigning season” meant the season when armies took the field. The word and expression are relatively modern, first coming into use in the 16-17 C. How could ancient authors date by something which didn’t exist then ? No more than they could count our way without a ‘zero’ !
Xenophon wrote: Demosthenes too complained [Third Philippic] that Philip II of Macedon habitually campaigned all year round.( thanks to his 'new model' professional army and the use of mercenaries.)
And his whole point is wasted were the regular campaigning season not well understood by his audience.
The concept of 'campaigning season' did not exist at that time. You’ve missed Demosthenes point entirely. He is saying that Philip has a military advantage because he can take the field all year round, thanks to having paid professional mercenaries – something the largely citizen army of Athens could not do, and he is urging them to ‘fight fire with fire’ and prepare for year round warfare with Philip:
“....You hear of Philip marching where he pleases, not because he commands troops of the line[hoplites/citizen militia], but because he has attached to him a host of skirmishers, cavalry, archers, mercenaries, and the like. When with these he falls upon a people in civil dissension, and none (through mistrust) will march out to defend the country, he applies engines and besieges them. I need not mention that he makes no difference between winter and summer, that he has no stated season of repose.”
Paralus wrote:Diodorus, too, structures his narrative (Books 18-20) via campaigning seasons – noting the combatants going into winter quarters and the actions which then began the following spring. Comparing this with other books, it becomes apparent his source reckoned by these seasons.
That is an over simplification at best, and another cliché at worst. Alexander Meeus, with whom you are acquainted, points out the problems with Diodorus, who continues to reckon by archon years, but gets into a muddle. As Meeus tabulates in “Chronology of the third Diadoch War”, Diodorus’ source was reckoning by seasons, much as Thucydides had done. He refers to single seasons such as ‘Spring’ or ‘Autumn’ or ‘Winter’in parts, and double seasons, such as ‘Spring/Summer’ or Summer/Autumn’, and doesn’t neatly end each year with ‘Winter’ as you suggest. Like Thucydides, Diodorus documents a number of winter campaigns also..... [I recommend Meeus for more high jinks with ‘Low’ and ‘High and ‘mixed chronologies...... Diodorus never mentions ‘campaigning seasons’ either, AFAIK.]
Alexander Meeus also notes: "See e.g. Manni 1951: 70-73 who claims that Diodorus’ source used the Macedonian year rather than the
campaigning year of the traditional view" (The Chronology of the Third Diadoch War, p 76, n 19). Cliche's abound. Diodorus does miss two winters (Book 19). This is not unusual as he misses two complete archon years in Book 18. It is clear that his source noted these and used campaigning years which Diodorus eventually worked into his chronographic scheme.
See above. Diodorus could not use a dating system which did not exist. He could refer to “summers” and “winters, like Thucydides, or “winters” then “summers” if his source Hieronymus was using either Macedonian years, or a simple Thucydidean one, starting with “winter”.....
Xenophon wrote:As so often, you distort what I actually say. I asserted no such thing and would not. I merely mentioned the possibility that Justin might have read, or been aware of Curtius’ work.
In any event the subject was the authorship of the probable interpolator, and the fact of the direct contradiction in Curtius.
Xenophon wrote: Curiously too, Heracles is not mentioned by most of our sources in connection with the Babylonian crisis - only briefly by Curtius [X.6.10] and the late author Justin[XIII.2], who may well have got the anecdote from Curtius, or else both found it in a Hellenistic source.
Has since become:
Xenophon wrote [Tue 21 Feb]: I made it quite clear that I believe the interpolation was made in Curtius, writing in the 1st century, not Justin writing in the 3rd. It is well known that Justin permitted himself considerable freedom of digression by producing an idiosyncratic anthology rather than a proper epitome, frequently inserting his own words [hence the many errors]. He most likely was familiar with Curtius, and this is where he got the references to Heracles. Consequently everything you say above is not relevant.
Because Justin lifted his references to Herakles from Curtius (and his unproven interpolator), everything I say is irrelevant. Fairly dogmatic I'd say.
As so often, you take my words out of context. That last quotation was in the context that you were speaking as if I had written of an interpolation in Justin, when in fact I was referring to Curtius. [Your post of Feb 18, in which you also falsely claimed I had referred to interpolators in both Curtius and Justin!] BTW, your whole reference to an interpolation in Justin is a classic example of the false reasoning called a"straw man argument", whereby the proponent sets up his own target - one easily knocked down - rather than argue with what was actually said.
The above remark of yours regarding dogma is pure sophistry. I didn’t assert it as fact, simply 'most likely', and as a result your lengthy passage regarding an interpolation in Justin was not relevant, which of course it wasn’t.
Also, your entire argument IS largely irrelevant, because despite several reminders, you blithely totally ignore all the evidence against 'Heracles' existence before 310 - and there is a great deal of it.
Paralus wrote:In any case, the question was what detail did Photios / Arrian supply regarding the subject under discussion – the settlement in Babylon? I see you chose to discuss the entire epitome instead of addressing it.
I took it that you meant Photius in toto for events post-Alexander. You did not make it clear that you were quoting Bosworth, nor that he/you were referring to the Babylon settlement only. That only becomes clear when you now quote Bosworth properly in context.
.......As can clearly be seen, the words are clearly those of Bosworth (citation provided) and I was just as clearly writing in relation to the treatment of the Bablyonian Settlement, as was Bosworth. How it could ever be seen otherwise passes my comprehension (embarrassed emoticon). Perhaps we might cease the gratuitous commentary ?
That quote from you comes from your post of Jan 21, back on page 2! We were discussing a rather different aspect of the matter toward the end of February and early March on page 5! There, you did not give an attribution for Photios being the “briefest of epitomes”, nor allude to Bosworth, nor that you were only referring to the Babylon settlement part, not Photios as a whole)
I believe that the discussion regarding the reality or otherwise of ‘Heracles’ being the son of Alexander, was to all intents and purposes concluded back in January ( see my post Jan 26, summarising most of the evidence, and Paralus’ post the same day stating he was resting his case.)
FWIW, it doesn't really matter whether the 'Heracles' story at Babylon is an interpolation ( which I think probable), or whether it really is Curtius relating contradictory evidence from two different sources - ancient historians sometimes do that - the result is the same. 'Heracles' almost certainly did not exist then, purely based on all the other overwhelming evidence, as well as the contradiction in Curtius.
If I may speculate a little, this tale is possibly ultimately derived from the propaganda spread by Polyperchon in 310, for he would certainly have had to explain why a 'son' of Alexander was overlooked at Babylon. It may then have been transmitted by someone like Duris of Samos, a rather untrustworthy historian who liked 'tragic history', to be interwoven into Alexander folklore, where later writers like Curtius ( or an interpolator, given the sudden contradiction) found it.....
Yet on and on Paralus went, introducing nothing much new, totally ignoring the overwhelming evidence against the existence of ‘Heracles’ prior to 310, and simply repeating Curtius and Justin as if they were gospel, or devising nit-picking arguments by taking things I posted out of context, raising red herrings and other fallacious arguments in order to try and ‘score points’ in an argument for argument’s sake, and digressing into chronological arguments about Thucydides and Diodorus measuring time by “campaigning seasons” – a concept which didn’t exist when our sources wrote, and which is wrong anyway since campaigns were fought all year round on occasion in both Thucydides and Diodorus’ Histories.
[Digression : There are scholars who debate “high” and “low” chronologies in Thucydides too ! Furthermore, there are a number of Athenian epigrahical stelae from the 5 C BC which record various decrees, but often because of damage etc, we don’t know the date of them. Previously therefore, they were often dated to events and subject by their lettering style. This has turned out to be incorrect, and now Athenian 5C epigraphy has had to be completely revised !!!
Did I mention that ancient chronology is almost always problematical ??!!
Paralus has the unhappy knack of turning discussion into argument, in which he can never be ‘wrong’, and I have tried to end this one several times now. I am now no longer a young man, and I can see myself shuffling off this mortal coil before this argument is concluded !
So I shall try to write “FINIS” to discussion about ‘Heracles’ and chronology once more.........