Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Beat me to the punch there, Amyntoros, though I am sad you disapprove of PARA[lus]-noia, Agesilitis just lacks the wit that Xeno-phobia once had, it has paled with repetition.

I cannot speak for Paralus, but I have bee arguing Andrew's corner only so far as the'objective' review has been overstating its case; there is really no need for it anymore than there was for a separate thread that only answered the most recent points. As for the latest fantasy I am beginning to suspect that Xenophon and Taphoi are twin souls fighting for possession of the same body!

The pointers to the fact that Kassandros moved after the execution of Olympias are actually clear, there is no need for recourse to contextual arguments.
53 1 But Cassander, after assembling an adequate force, set out from Macedonia, desiring to drive Polyperchon's son Alexander from the Peloponnesus; for of those who opposed Cassander he alone was left with an army
So Polyperchon lacked an army, which is only true
52 6.Polyperchon was being besieged in Azorius in Perrhaebia, but on hearing of the death of Olympias he finally, despairing of success in Macedonia, escaped from the city with a few followers.
The sequence of events is not the dispute here but whether they occur in 316 or 315 BC, as you complain when one discerns deceit, I will have to allow that you are simply ignorant of the nature of the chronological dispute, which is quite complex and still not resolved (although there options from which to choose they all have their merits and faults).

If people 'double team' it is because they both find fault with what you have said, somewhere you piously announced you would always freely admit when you were wrong, if you cannot bring yourself to do so (and don't think I believe that southerlies which are dangerous sailing west become beneficial when sailing east; though I readily confess you have more experience in small boats and possibly big ones; the point here is that the craft involved is always going to be a galley not dependent upon the wind.) you might at least explain why it is so important to you that he sets out before the execution. That remains more mysterious than the reasons for starting the thread. :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Amyntoros wrote:
Point taken about the shift in age, and it is noted than when faced with the change in age Andrew had to reconsider his earlier postulations. But it should be noted that in all fairness (and I do like to be fair) that archaeological discoveries, when verified, can change or add to historical knowledge. Yes, Andrew is taking a frowned-upon approach that the skeleton IS Olympias and is therefore examining each new piece of evidence to see how it may fit his theory. So here his next step was to examine historical knowledge and see if it were possible despite the postulation of himself and most scholars, that she could have been older. And, getting back to my earlier post, I agree that if Olympias had lost previous infants then, yes, she might have been older than previously thought. Yes, it's an assumption, but given the relatively large number of Philip's wives and the small number of his children it is highly possible that many of his offspring never made it past their early years. And here is the instance where I disagree with one of your points - "A bad case of changing the premises to distort the actual evidence." Yes, the premises were changed, but I don't see that the actual evidence was distorted. Sometimes, even using "bad" methodology a person can get lucky with their results!
So the only one of Andrew's points that you think feasible is the one about the possible age of Olympias, then. I also acknowledged this earlier. There are sufficient uncertainties both about the age of Olympias and the age of the skeleton to allow the two to overlap, but only at a stretch, as you pointed out previously.

And Andrew's argument is a distortion of the evidence, for it concentrates on a possible overlap to make Olympias in her sixties when she died, ignoring all the other pointers to age in our evidence, which suggest that she was in her fifties when she died. To concentrate on one unlikely possibility rather than consider all the age evidence is indeed a distortion.....
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Paralus wrote:
Xenophon wrote:Apparently you are unfamiliar with the abbreviation "e.g.". It means "for example." An example is not the same as a citation.
Quite familiar. You, it seems, are unfamiliar with the word "cite". Perhaps you might care to look it up.
I have looked it up, in various dictionaries.None, including several different Oxford dictionaries, refer to it as a synonym for ‘example’ including your linked definition! A citation may be given as an example, and an example cited but the two are not the same at all.
Xenophon wrote:
Xenophon wrote:Cassander's concern was that if allowed to defend herself, and doubtless make much of being the revered Alexander's mother, she might escape a death sentence. Once convicted and sentenced, she was doomed.

Paralus wrote
Cassander's concerns extended far beyond the mere possibility of a conviction failing. His concerns are described (and pointed out by myself) clearly in the sources and these concerns are manifest after the conviction. You seem not to be able to see this. It is a rather logical reason (one of them) why Cassander would not leave Macedonia on a campaign in the Peloponnese with Olympias alive and well back in Macedonia.

Xenophon wrote:
And I have painted a rather different picture. For every plausible reason you can put forward for a 'late' departure, there is an equal, if not more cogent reason, for an early departure.. The chronology is not at all clear. Olympias was not 'alive and well' or capable of causing the slightest bit of mischief, for the reasons I have expounded.

Excellent verb. "Painted" is all that you have done. You really need to deal with the actual source evidence - which I've presented more than once - and do more than just "paint" your own picture.
I agree the source evidence, just not your interpretation of it. Cassander’s sole concern with ‘the Macedonians’ is their reaction to regicide – the killing of Olympias and the intended killing of Alexander IV. [XIX.52.4]. He does not wish to provoke the same reaction Olympias did by killing King Philip and his Queen. He expresses no qualms about their general loyalty to him whatsoever. Even if he did have such qualms, your reasoning is not sound. Where disaffection is suspected, the obvious course of action is to conscript the disaffected, and march them off against an external foe as quickly as possible, not hang around at home until they rebel.
Colouring that evidence with your opinion ("our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously" and "they [the relatives] were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution") is not arguing the evidence. Cassander - as Diodorus and Justin clearly show - would absolutely disagree with that last assertion and you've adduced no evidence to the contrary. In fact, you have yet to deal with the source evidence presented outside your own opinion.
Totally untrue. I don't even put forward an opinion.I correctly reported the soldiers who were intended as executioners balking at killing Olympias .
“....sent to her two hundred soldiers who were best fitted for such a task, ordering them to slay her as soon as possible. They, accordingly, broke into the royal house, but when they beheld Olympias, overawed by her exalted rank, they withdrew with their task unfulfilled.”
Subsequently the grieving relatives, once they became aware of the soldiers failure, of their own volition, spontaneously and without orders killed her in order to ingratiate themselves with Cassander.
“But the relatives of her victims, wishing to curry favour with Cassander as well as to avenge their dead, murdered the queen, who uttered no ignoble or womanish plea.”
[XIX.51.5]
Plain reporting of the source material without a skerrick of opinion inserted.

It is you puts forward an opinion, unevidenced.
Cassander's concerns extended far beyond the mere possibility of a conviction failing. His concerns are described (and pointed out by myself) clearly in the sources and these concerns are manifest after the conviction. You seem not to be able to see this. It is a rather logical reason (one of them) why Cassander would not leave Macedonia on a campaign in the Peloponnese with Olympias alive and well back in Macedonia.
You assert that Cassander mistrusted the general loyalty of the Macedonians. There is no evidence for this. On the contrary the sources report growing support for Cassander. Your reasoning for Cassander supposedly not leaving Macedon is equally spurious, as I have explained.
Last edited by Xenophon on Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Amyntoros wrote:
It has never been personal but is just one of those twists of fate wherein two people with completely opposing views are active on the same forum. And isn't that a good thing for Pothos, surely? Members with opposing views? Their debates cause ancient sources and evidence to be examined, re-examined, investigated, etc. "Sides" may well be taken, but when such discussions cause increased interest and (hopefully) participation then Pothos benefits. As I've said so many times now, except for the rarest of cases there is no black or white, no right or wrong when we're discussing events from so long ago. We assess the evidence and draw our own opinions. And this is Pothos, a place to freely discuss those opinions. Whatever they may be.
If only everyone adopted that approach to the forum ! Unfortunately, some people don’t or can’t debate objectively or dispassionately, or without making it personal. If you found yourself stalked from thread to thread, your every post and statement invariably attacked no matter the topic, subject to constant name-calling, savage scorn and ridicule, you might think and feel a little differently. It takes a great deal of restraint too, not to respond in kind ( for the most part).

And if you were considering contributing, would seeing that type of behaviour not make you think twice? Who wants to post on a forum contaminated with trolling?

Like others, I think that debate by opposing views can be educational – it’s the reason I’m here – and opinions freely discussed. Objectively and dispassionately.

But that doesn’t happen, and until it does I doubt we are going to get increased interest and participation, which I would love to see......
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Beat me to the punch there, Amyntoros, though I am sad you disapprove of PARA[lus]-noia, Agesilitis just lacks the wit that Xeno-phobia once had, it has paled with repetition.

I cannot speak for Paralus, but I have bee arguing Andrew's corner only so far as the'objective' review has been overstating its case; there is really no need for it anymore than there was for a separate thread that only answered the most recent points. As for the latest fantasy I am beginning to suspect that Xenophon and Taphoi are twin souls fighting for possession of the same body!
Why shouldn’t a new thread bring discussion up to date? Or a thread be devoted to a single aspect of the debates swirling around the Kasta tomb?
The pointers to the fact that Kassandros moved after the execution of Olympias are actually clear, there is no need for recourse to contextual arguments.

53 1 But Cassander, after assembling an adequate force, set out from Macedonia, desiring to drive Polyperchon's son Alexander from the Peloponnesus; for of those who opposed Cassander he alone was left with an army
So Polyperchon lacked an army, which is only true

52 6.Polyperchon was being besieged in Azorius in Perrhaebia, but on hearing of the death of Olympias he finally, despairing of success in Macedonia, escaped from the city with a few followers.
That does not logically follow, and is quite incorrect. Our sources don’t mention Polyperchon having an army with him at all. Azorius in Perrhaebia was a village or small town, not a walled city and could not possibly have accommodated an army of any size. Nor, once under siege, could an army have been fed. And clearly Cassander’s besieging force was not a large army. The clincher is that Diodorus specifically tells us [XIX.36.6]
“...Her only hope of aid was from Polyperchon, and this was also unexpectedly crushed; for when Callas, who had been sent by Cassander as general, drew near Polyperchon in Perrhaebia and camped there, he corrupted most of Polyperchon's soldiers by bribes so that there remained only a few and these the most faithful. Thus Olympias' hopes were humbled in a brief time.”
So Alexander’s army was the only one left to oppose Cassander since before the fall of Pydna, and your argument collapses.
The sequence of events is not the dispute here but whether they occur in 316 or 315 BC, as you complain when one discerns deceit, I will have to allow that you are simply ignorant of the nature of the chronological dispute, which is quite complex and still not resolved (although there options from which to choose they all have their merits and faults).
You are flying off at a tangent. I was not alluding to the ‘High v Low’ debate of which I am not "simply ignorant", but the chronology of events in the weeks and months of the Spring, as is abundantly clear from my following remarks.
If people 'double team' it is because they both find fault with what you have said, somewhere you piously announced you would always freely admit when you were wrong, if you cannot bring yourself to do so (and don't think I believe that southerlies which are dangerous sailing west become beneficial when sailing east; though I readily confess you have more experience in small boats and possibly big ones; the point here is that the craft involved is always going to be a galley not dependent upon the wind.) you might at least explain why it is so important to you that he sets out before the execution. That remains more mysterious than the reasons for starting the thread.
‘People’ don’t double-team me – just you and your chum Paralus. And I do admit to it if I am in error, though I carefully check my facts before I post, apparently unlike you as exemplified above, hence make far fewer errors.
Isn’t it typical that you will argue anything, even on a subject about which I know a great deal, and you all too obviously know nothing ? It is not just sailing boats which are at the mercy of wind and wave. Galleys are just as much affected. The wind shapes the waves. A galley sailing east or west will find itself being pushed sideways by a southerly wind, and associated waves. ( called leeway). If you can’t make progress to windward, then if you are departing Eion, you will end up wrecked on the lee shore, unless you turn south and row into the wind, which you won't be doing for long. A fugitive vessel could not afford to wait until the prevailing southerlies dropped, and even creeping west along the dangerous lee shore would very soon have to turn south. Having to row into the wind would have quickly exhausted any galley’s crew, and the ship would not have got far.
That does not apply to Pydna, which has ‘sea room’ to the north in the event of southerlies. Also, a galley departing Pydna would have been able to use its sails.

Alexander’s merchant supply fleet will have waited until a suitable window opened wind-wise, made their way out to sea, and then ‘reached’ easily to the East.

It is not important to me when Cassander sets out - my point is that one shouldn't assume it was after Olympias' execution ( whose timing we do not know exactly), since it is just as likely, if not more so, that it was before, for the various reasons I have mentioned.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Azorius i[n Perrhaebia was a village or small town, not a walled city and could not possibly have accommodated an army of any size.
the wall of the 'village or small town'
the wall of the 'village or small town'
arxaio_teixos2.jpg (88.59 KiB) Viewed 5679 times
Strabo VII 7 ix
9 In earlier times there were also cities among these tribes; at any rate, Pelagonia used to be called Tripolitis, one of which was Azorus; and all the cities of the Deuriopes on the Erigon River were populous, among which were Bryanium, Alalcomenae, and Stubara. And Cydrae belonged to the Brygi, while Aeginium, on the border of Aethicia and Tricca,455 belonged to the Tymphaei. When one is already near to Macedonia and to Thessaly, and in the neighbourhood of the Poeus and the Pindus Mountains, one comes to the country of the Aethices and to the sources of the Peneius River, the possession of which is disputed by the Tymphaei and those Thessalians who live at the foot of the Pindus, and to the city Oxineia, situated on the Ion River one hundred and twenty stadia from Azorus in Tripolitis.
The word is 'polis', throughout and with Dloiche and Pythion, Azoros formed an amphiktyony called Tripolis in the early Fourth Century issuing a joint coinage
tripolitan.jpg
tripolitan.jpg (28.38 KiB) Viewed 5679 times
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:

Xenophon wrote:
Azorius i[n Perrhaebia was a village or small town, not a walled city and could not possibly have accommodated an army of any size.
Strabo VII 7 ix
9 In earlier times there were also cities among these tribes; at any rate, Pelagonia used to be called Tripolitis, one of which was Azorus; and all the cities of the Deuriopes on the Erigon River were populous, among which were Bryanium, Alalcomenae, and Stubara. And Cydrae belonged to the Brygi, while Aeginium, on the border of Aethicia and Tricca,455 belonged to the Tymphaei. When one is already near to Macedonia and to Thessaly, and in the neighbourhood of the Poeus and the Pindus Mountains, one comes to the country of the Aethices and to the sources of the Peneius River, the possession of which is disputed by the Tymphaei and those Thessalians who live at the foot of the Pindus, and to the city Oxineia, situated on the Ion River one hundred and twenty stadia from Azorus in Tripolitis.


The word is 'polis', throughout and with Dloiche and Pythion, Azoros formed an amphiktyony called Tripolis in the early Fourth Century issuing a joint coinage
Agesilaos is quite correct - my initial brief research was incorrect and Azoros ( with its many variants of its correct name) was indeed a walled 'polis' rather than an unwalled town. The photo he posted shows archaic geometric type wall, and because of this and the slope shown in the photo this is possibly the ancient Acropolis rather than the classical/Hellenistic city walls. Further research reveals it to have been of modest size, about 1500 metres x 500 metres roughly surrounding the Acropolis, which is where Polyperchon undoubtedly holed up. It was about 150 Hectares, with an estimated population of about 20-30,000. ( a village by modern standards, but significant back then). The importance of this 'polis' was that it dominated the routes around Mt Olympus which led from Macedon to Thessaly. However, we should not allow this digression or the question of how many troops it might hold in a siege to obscure the point under discussion, namely whether it is an indicator of when Cassander marched south.

As we have seen, Polyperchon did not have an army at this point, for it had gone over to Cassander:
"...Cassander received Epirus in his alliance and sent Lyciscus to it as regent and general, at which the people throughout Macedonia who had previously held apart from the alliance abandoned the fortunes of Olympias in despair and joined themselves to Cassander. Her only hope of aid was from Polyperchon, and this was also unexpectedly crushed; for when Callas, who had been sent by Cassander as general, drew near Polyperchon in Perrhaebia and camped there, he corrupted most of Polyperchon's soldiers by bribes so that there remained only a few and these the most faithful. Thus Olympias' hopes were humbled in a brief time.”
Olympias was holed up and besieged in Pydna, and Polyperchon in Azoros, without an army. Already at this time, Alexander's army in the Peloponnese was the only army to oppose Cassander, so the passages Agesilaos referred to are no help in determining when Cassander headed south - it could have been before or after Olympias' execution.

While unknowable, and perhaps not important, I suspect on balance of probability it was 'before', for the reasons ( and others) already referred to.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Edited to sort the mess out (warning not to hit ‘submit ‘ rather than ‘save’ at the end of the day!)

Winds in the North Aegean between April and May blow from the N to NW at upto 4 on the Beaufort scale, which is aa moderate breeze of 11- 16 knots according to http://www.s-aegeanyachting.com/eng/inf ... ling_Winds .
At http://boatgreece.com/destinations/winds-in-greece the figures for Thasos are NE and 1.4 knots (which must be an error for 14) it also gives a description of the Aegaean winds.
The winds blowing in the Ionian Sea during the summer are the NW "maϊstros" winds, while during the winter we also have the wet sirocco, that, when at its strongest, can blow for 2 or 3 days without stop. Also during the winter, and to a lesser extent in the summer, blows the NE Central Mediterranean wind called "gregos", which comes from Albania and Western Greece. It creates strong waves in the winter, but does not blow in the summer.
Winds in the area of Aegean Sea usually appears during the warm season, from May to September, blows from north and are called etesians or meltemia. Normally, the meltemia season begins around the end of May and ends around the end of October. They are the strongest during the months of July and August, and their average duration is from 2 to 4 days, although they do not have the same frequency of appearance every year. These winds mostly blow during the day, from 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening, and are at their strongest around 2 in the afternoon.
They are characterised by alternate strengthening and weakening, while they fall quickly after sundown, to return at dawn. In the Northern Aegean they usually are NE winds, in the Central Aegean they become North, and in the Southern Aegean NW. In the area of Rhodos they tend to become West, while in the Saronikos and the Northern Evoikos Gulf they remain NE. Under the influence of the sea breeze during the day, the meltemia become stronger locally, as is the case in the coastal area of Northern Crete. The meltemia are at their most intense in the N. Aegean, particularly in the region of the Cyclades islands.
During the winter, the winds blowing in the Aegean reach a force of 8-9 Beaufort, while greater intensity is observed in the Kafireas straits (Cavo Doro) and in the Cyclades.
With regard to the waters in the Thermaikos Gulf, there we encounter the strong local NW wind called vardaris, with strengths that range from 6 to 8 Beaufort. Also during the winter, and particularly when it is at its coldest, a humid wind in the Aegean region, which becomes gradually stronger , accompanied by low skies and rain. It appears mostly in the southern and western regions of the Aegean, but this stormy wind does not make an appearance often.
As you have already stated that the Macedonian muster took place in Xandikos we have a good pointer for the month if your theory is right, in 315BC Xandikos ran 7 March to 5 April, for those preferring 316BC Xandikos ran 16 Feb to 18 March but there was a second Xandikos this year (in which the muster would have taken place 18 March to 16 April. Were Olympias to have been killed after the army had mustered it must have been in April at the earliest. The wind is not a factor in her position then.

Nor were they Foehn wins, as you mentioned in your green script they are
The föhn (German) is a generic term for warm strong and often very dry downslope winds that descend in the lee of a mountain barrier.
Perhaps you could point out on google earth just where the mountains are to the south of Macedonia that might create foehn winds? Presumably you do have some evidence for the southerly winds in the northern Aegean that would make passage to Athens impossible. Please share it and the references.
Last edited by agesilaos on Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:To make a case for the skeleton possibly being Olympias, you are reduced to rejecting the sources altogether and describing them as "fiction"( always a fraught proposition)…
Xenophon wrote:Justin’s account is demonstrably fictional and the details he gives impossible ( the thrusting gladius did not exist at the time), hence were added by him, I would give his account short shrift.
We are thus reduced to rejecting source material and describing it as “fiction”, in this instance Justin’s account. As ever, a fraught proposition. I quoted both Justin and Diodorus on Olympias’ death earlier in the thread and summed it up as below:
Agesilaos' Chum wrote:Trogus records that the job was accomplished by sword - and not "hacked to death".Given that neither records that stoning was to be the manner of death, Trogus is, in my view, more likely.
I subsequently reiterated that view as well as the fact that the relatives who carried out the murder clearly acted under Cassander’s fiat. Thus, as the sources all subsequently relate, the murder of Olympias is Cassander’s responsibility. This has excited a farrago of words the aim of which is, in good part, to arrive at the above dismissal of the testimony of Justin as “fiction”. In the process several claims have been made; some few follow:
Xenophon wrote:If we strip away Justin’s ‘dramatics’, and his inaccuracies of detail about the means/weapon used that he almost certainly invented, then we are left with nothing of his account.

It is quite conceivable that Justin is simply drawing on Diodorus here. [ or the same source]…

Since he was probably familiar with Diodorus’ account, it is hardly surprising it “coheres” [i.e. Justin’s account with that of Diodorus].
Such claims deserve some scrutiny. Now, as I’ve pointed out, Justin’s account, not for the first or last time, coheres reasonably with Diodorus’ version. Xenophon would have it that Justin “simply drawing on Diodorus” here is “quite conceivable”. Further, the similarities between the two writers is “hardly surprising” because Justin was “probably familiar with Diodorus”. While not absolutely impossible, both are far more than improbable.

Diodorus is summarising his source(s), whether that be Hieronymus directly, Hieronymus combined with others or an intermediary who combined some others with Hieronymus (I would favour the latter). Justin, on the other hand, is producing “a small collection of flowers” from the “universal history” written by the Romanised Gaul Trogus. Justin informs us that he did so collecting “whatever was most worthy of being known” whilst “rejecting such parts as were neither attractive for the pleasure of reading nor necessary” for the orator wanting historical exempla (Just. Praef.4) . A subjective process bent to Justin’s own ‘programme’ which produced the mightily abridged ‘epitome’ we have today.

Both Diodorus and Trogus wrote at near enough to the same time and just who finished what first is unknowable. Finding the sources of Trogus is fraught as we need to use the severe filter of Justin’s abbreviation. Justin himself says (Praef. 3) that Trogus utilised the Greek histories and “summarised all their material” chronologically by subject to produce a universal history of the Greeks (and others) in Latin. While Justin (or Trogus himself) might exaggerate this wide reading, what can (and has been) demonstrated is that either Trogus or his source used (at least) both Hieronymus and Duris in books 13-17. This is most apparent in book 13 where Justin can be shown to cohere with Arrian. This coherence occasionally stands out when Justin/Arrian differ from Diodorus thus indicating the use of sources other than those used by the Sicilian.

As I’ve noted, the process of abridgement necessarily results in leaving information out rather than adding in. Thus Diodorus, noting that the aggrieved relatives accomplished the murder, does not bother to include the method. Justin, on the other hand, does record the method as being by sword. That is just as likely to be the personal choice of both summarisers as down to their source material and is not surprising. Justin, in fact, preserves details elsewhere that do not appear in other sources. Justin tells us that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia from Megalopolis (14.5.1) for example. Something we would otherwise have to infer from Diodorus 18.72.2 (“went off about other more necessary business”). He also tells us at 14.535 that Cassander was in Macedonia when Eurydike conferred the regency upon him.

It is clear then that while both Diodorus and Trogus can be shown to have shared common source material, the Gaul also used sources which the Sicilian did not. It is also apparent that Justin – whose expressed purpose was abridging Trogus for the rhetorical schools (and a refresher for those acquainted with history) – was no Trogus (or Diodorus for that matter). Justin, summarising a single universal history, was not combing the various historical works producing a universal history as were that pair. Just as he had no need of the other historical treatises to summarise Trogus, nor did Justin need to read Diodorus whilst producing his Trogan “flowers”. And whether Justin was aware of Diodorus or not, he had no need of corroborative material from that abridger to summarise Trogus’ universal history. Where we see congruences between Justin and Diodorus we may suppose shared source material between Trogus and the Sicilian; where there are differences we might posit differing sources (certainly when externally corroborated). We might also exercise caution in that Justin, as Yardley has shown, can colour his source with his own agenda and language – as does Diodorus.

In the instance under discussion (Olympias’ death), both Trogus and Diodorus share essentially the same information (and likely a source) and the differences that are apparent are a largely result of the respective epitomisers’ own agendas as mentioned above. For Diodorus this is his “moral programme” and so Olympias is reported as getting her just deserts because she does not behave as one properly should when accorded good fortune in the face of another’s utter misfortune (Eurydike). For Justin it is the topos of women behaving in a “womanish fashion” but facing severe adversity (death) in a fashion benefitting a man. Thus for Justin, Olympias’ behaviour on returning to Macedonia (the killings, etc.) is that typical of women. When it comes her turn to die she displays the other side of this coin and dies as well as any man of her time, indeed the death of a ‘king’ (by the blade). These are the ‘dramatics’ to which I originally referred; nothing to do with swords or stabbing. Diodorus, too, acknowledges this stating the matriarch “uttered no ignoble or womanish plea” (19.51.5)

With reference to the sword (‘gladius’), the argument that this was not even invented at the time of Olympias’ death somewhat passes my comprehension. Nothing whatsoever has been adduced to prove that Justin has “invented” the use of swords here other than that the galdius did not exist in 317/6. Trogus claims to have summarised various Greek histories to produce his universal history. As he did so he translated the Greek into Latin for his Roman audience. Trogus himself came from a military family (his father having served under Caesar, his grandfather against Sertorious). It is unremarkable in the extreme that were Olympias’ death described (by Trogus’ source) as having been by the sword that Trogus might well translate the Greek (xiphos, kopis, etc.) into that instantly recognisable Roman version ‘gladius’. Indeed he seems to have done so regularly unless we are to suppose that every time a sword appears in the Greek narrative that Justin has simply invented it (cf 9.7.4 where Philip pursues Alexander with a naked ‘gladius’ and 12.7.16 where Alexander cuts the Gordion Knot with his ‘gladius’). Asserting the supposed “invention” of a gladius by Justin in Olympias’ murder is frail justification for dismissing source material as “demonstrable fiction”.

Given that we’ve exceeded 1300 words I shall leave the rest of this response for another post.
Last edited by Paralus on Fri Jul 17, 2015 1:41 pm, 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 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

GREEK WINDS
Agesilaos wrote:
maybe it is just my total ignorance in wind matters, but this seems to lack any southerlies too.
Well, let’s just say that anyone who thinks the Etesian winds blow in winter isn’t terribly knowledgeable about Greek winds!

I fear that you misunderstand the meaning of ‘prevailing winds’. It does not mean that the wind always blows from a particular direction [as I pointed out earlier], rather it means a wind from the direction that is predominant or most usual at a particular place or season.

Firstly, the tables you post are for the wrong time of year, being ‘sailing season’ commencing late Spring in April and hence irrelevant. We are here concerned with the period “as Spring came on” i.e. just before, or at the beginning of spring and Olympias was executed shortly afterward. i.e. Late Feb-March.
Second, the tables are for the wrong places – Crete, Rhodes and the Ionian sea ( between Italy and Greece!! ) etc are irrelevant to the conditions around Eion. The closest is the island of Limnos, hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Aegean, off the Turkish coast. You seem somewhat Geographically challenged !

From “Environmental problems of the Greeks and Romans”:
“In Winter low pressure cells form over the Mediterranean......bringing westerly or south-westerly rain bearing winds. Aristotle called these winds ‘lips’, a south-west wind, a wet wind.”
In addition, the Scirocco blows across the Mediterranean from Africa to the south, and sometimes deposits Saharan dust in Europe, making the rain turn red. The Sirocco blows from November to March, and sometimes as late as May. It is strongest in Autumn and Spring. Southerly Fohn type winds are also referred to as Scirrocco in Greece.
“However, strong gale-force siroccos are most common during the spring. The average duration of continuous gale force winds during a Scirocco is 10 to 12 hours and occasionally as long as 36 hours. The onset of a gale-force Sirocco often occurs as a surface low moves into the Gulf of Gabes from Tunisia, combined with the passage of a deep 500 mb trough extending well into north Africa and positioned west of the Gulf of Gabes. The gale-force Sirocco is most common during the spring and may reach wind forces between 5 and 8 Bft.”
Weather Online website.
(No galley type warship could even put to sea in such weather, let alone into the teeth of a southerly gale.)

South westerly Fohn type Katabatic winds can originate in the mountains of the Mt Olympus range and blow across the Thermaic gulf to the plain of Thessalaniki. These southerly winds are called ‘Lyvas’ locally. Similar winds can occur from the Mt Athos peninsula and blow across the Strymonic gulf (toward Eion-Amphipolis.)

Unfortunately, I can’t reproduce a particular diagram, so you must go here:

http://www.sailingissues.com/windroses.html

Have a look at the diagram for March, the month we are most likely concerned with. Now look at the wind-roses in the Strymonic and Thermaic gulfs, which are similar. They show frequent winds from a southerly direction ( South-West,South,South-East ) punctuated by winds from the North-East. The latter are gales and storms from the Balkans, which destroyed Persian fleets by blowing them onto the lee-shores of the Athos peninsula. Thus whether southerly or north easterly winds blow, a ship trying to leave Eion and head south would be in considerable difficulty, as I described earlier. Now look at the similar wind-rose in the Thermaic gulf, and you can readily see that these same winds, so contrary to a ship departing Eion, assist a ship leaving Pydna.....
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

Xenophon. you really must stop declaring points that you raise yourself, irrelevant ; as for accusations of nit-picking, look at what the wind roses actually tell you, there are no gales involved at all nor sirroccoes, analyse them and you will find that Pydna is actually at the disadvantage for for both leaving port and travelling to Athens, but neither is impossible; which was and remains your overstated point re- Amphipolis. Nor is this a minor point your model makes a mess of many other voyages; instead of defending a non-point by accusing others of ignorance (and arguing from your own authority :lol: :lol: ) you might realise that it is an unnecessary point; the fact that Kassandros has to build Kastas in the unsafe dating is sufficient doubt, but we cannot say conclusive proof.

If you are making a point about winds it might be useful in future to post the evidence (which is much better than any I found) first off. If there are similar for the other maritime regions please e-mail a link; it is just the sort of info to make a naval campaign! (My friends might say 'to make it even more boring ! Fie to them!).

You will find that I have nowhere suggested that the Etesians blow in winter, so the quality of your jibe matches that of your analysis. You will have missed the chronological note to my revised post (it was a mess so I could not let it stand) it is most likely April that concerns this episode not March, see above.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Xenophon. you really must stop declaring points that you raise yourself, irrelevant ; as for accusations of nit-picking, look at what the wind roses actually tell you, there are no gales involved at all nor sirroccoes, analyse them and you will find that Pydna is actually at the disadvantage for for both leaving port and travelling to Athens, but neither is impossible; which was and remains your overstated point re- Amphipolis. Nor is this a minor point your model makes a mess of many other voyages; instead of defending a non-point by accusing others of ignorance (and arguing from your own authority ) you might realise that it is an unnecessary point; the fact that Kassandros has to build Kastas in the unsafe dating is sufficient doubt, but we cannot say conclusive proof.
I did not say “irrelevant”, I said “trivial point” [in a remark since moderated out], and it is surely that, for it was mentioned as an aside to the suggestion that Cassander’s passage offer could have had a departure point of Eion were she in Amphipolis at the time. This was purely hypothetical, since no-one other than Taphoi believes Olympias was in Amphipolis. I don't 'argue from my own authority' either, being careful to adduce evidence. ( and in any case there is nothing wrong with relevant personal knowledge)

As to the wind roses, they don’t show NE gales or the southerly Scirocco, though both were (and are) part of the ‘Winter weather pattern’ as per my last post. They are the reason winter sailing was so dangerous in those times. That pattern normally changes to ‘Summer weather pattern’ with its Etesian winds etc between mid-April and early May.

You are quite wrong that Pydna is at a disadvantage [ but then I did not expect to convince you]. When southerlies blow, a ship leaving Pydna sails east on a ‘reach’ – its best point of sail – until it has plenty of sea-room and then proceeds south by a series of tacks, or else creeps along inshore taking advantage of local conditions ( we haven’t mentioned effects of local land and sea breezes or currents – sailing is a complex business whether under sail or oar.) When a Nor-easter blows, with the wind abaft, the voyage is straightforward ( apart from the risks of bad weather). From Eion, as I explained previously, with southerlies blowing, just clearing the harbour with the wind against you, and then turning right along a lee-shore would be fraught with danger and difficulty. With a Nor-easter blowing, the ship would be in grave danger of being wrecked on the lee-shore of the Athos peninsula.

For a practical illustration, consider the fate of Mardonios’ Persian fleet. [Herod. VI.45] They had trouble doubling ( getting round) the Athos peninsula, no doubt due to adverse southerly winds, and were then caught by a typical Nor-easterly gale and wrecked on the lee-shore losing ( according to Herodotus) some 300 ships. When the Persians next came under Xerxes, his solution to the problems of trying to round Cape Athos in Spring was to dig a canal across the peninsula which took 3 years to build [Herod VII.23 ff].
If you are making a point about winds it might be useful in future to post the evidence (which is much better than any I found) first off. If there are similar for the other maritime regions please e-mail a link; it is just the sort of info to make a naval campaign! (My friends might say 'to make it even more boring ! Fie to them!).

I did not find the ‘wind-rose’ evidence for the prevalence of southerlies until I was researching a detailed response to your post, previously relying on general authorities (and some personal experience). I expect similar information would be available on the ‘interweb’ for areas where yacht chartering is popular – most Greek and Turkish waters, the Eastern Mediterranean etc
You will find that I have nowhere suggested that the Etesians blow in winter, so the quality of your jibe matches that of your analysis. You will have missed the chronological note to my revised post (it was a mess so I could not let it stand) it is most likely April that concerns this episode not March, see above.
From earlier in the thread:
Xenophon wrote:
Nor could she have been taken down-river from Amphipolis by boat to a ship offshore, for the prevailing winds at that time of year [Spring] are southerly,
Agesilaos wrote:
Not according to this ‘The etesian winds are the prevailing annually recurring summer winds, blowing over large parts of Greece, the Aegean Sea and eastern Mediterranean. The name derives from the Greek 'etesios', annual. They blow steadily from northern to northwestern directions, bringing cold continental air and clear skies between end of May and beginning of October. Naturally what you mean by spring and Diodoros by its onset might change this but the possibility still remains.
You were claiming that the Etesian winds, which are part of the Summer weather pattern, blew in Spring, when the Winter weather pattern is in fact applicable.[ which is what I meant by ‘Winter’]. The weather patterns don’t change until late –April/early May [see above]. I really don’t think our sources narrative can be stretched so as to have Olympias, who surrendered “As Spring came on”[Diod XIX.50] i.e. February or early March still alive as late as May, when the Etesian winds would be available to waft her to Athens.
Agesilaos wrote:
Winds in the North Aegean between April and May blow from the N to NW at up to 4 on the Beaufort scale, which is a moderate breeze of 11- 16 knots .
Ancient galleys, because of their lower oar ports did not have much freeboard ( despite having ‘askoma’/leather bags over the lowest ports) and could not handle waves much over a metre, and also because any higher would throw out timing under oar, with some oars biting into crests and others troughs. Beaufort force 4 would produce waves of this order of magnitude, and hence would represent maximum conditions for galleys. ( By comparison Force 5, with reefed sails, is the limit for small boats generally).

Agesilos wrote:
As you have already stated that the Macedonian muster took place in Xandikos we have a good pointer for the month if your theory is right, in 315BC Xandikos ran 7 March to 5 April, for those preferring 316BC Xandikos ran 16 Feb to 18 March but there was a second Xandikos this year (in which the muster would have taken place 18 March to 16 April. Were Olympias to have been killed after the army had mustered it must have been in April at the earliest. The wind is not a factor in her position then.
I can hardly do better than refer you to my earlier response:
Xen 4 July p.4
The annual Spring mobilisation normally took place at 'Xandika', a Spring festival that took place at the Spring equinox [ 21 March], but might occur sooner if required, and in this instance, of course, consisted only of fresh drafts for Cassander's existing army was already in the field. This is suggestive, but does not help us much, for the field army could have departed for the Peloponnese as soon as the Pydna campaign concluded leaving the fresh drafts to catch up. [ and before the other events, such as Olympias' execution, the funerals etc].
Alternately, he might have delayed departure and occupied himself with the execution of Olympias, the 'exile' of Alexander IV and Roxane, and the State Funeral of King Philip, Queen Euridice and her mother Cynna, and then set off once the fresh drafts came in.

We simply can't tell, because we don't know when Pydna fell, or when Olympias' execution took place. There is no definitive evidence.
That the annual mobilisation normally took place at the 'Xandika festival' celebrating the Spring equinox is not my 'theory', but established fact, as I understand it.
Given that Cassander favoured swift action, as witnessed by his campaign against Olympias, and his losing no time in taking Pella and Amphipolis, I’d suggest the former, with an early departure, more likely. Not to mention the unlikelihood of having the army sitting around in Macedon eating up expensive rations while these minor events took place....

edited to correct typo.
Last edited by Xenophon on Tue Jul 21, 2015 6:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 3:16 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Xenophon »

Quite why we need this lengthy ‘quellenforschung’ I am not sure. We debated the details of the accounts of Olympias’ death on pp 4-5 in depth. A ‘second bite at the cherry’ doesn’t seem to add anything, so I shall confine my comments to short responses rather than 1300 word essays...

Paralus wrote:
Xenophon wrote:To make a case for the skeleton possibly being Olympias, you are reduced to rejecting the sources altogether and describing them as "fiction"( always a fraught proposition)…
Xenophon wrote:Justin’s account is demonstrably fictional and the details he gives impossible ( the thrusting gladius did not exist at the time), hence were added by him, I would give his account short shrift.

We are thus reduced to rejecting source material and describing it as “fiction”, in this instance Justin’s account. As ever, a fraught proposition. I quoted both Justin and Diodorus on Olympias’ death earlier in the thread and summed it up as below:
You are taking my comments out of context to make a false comparison, simply for the sake of eristic argument. That Justin embellished his account with fictional details is not really disputed. You yourself referred to Justin’s “over the top additions” and “dramatic embellishments”, and that is what I am referring to also. The matter of the ‘gladius’ detail occurs post, and I will respond there.

Agesilaos' Chum wrote:Trogus records that the job was accomplished by sword - and not "hacked to death".Given that neither records that stoning was to be the manner of death, Trogus is, in my view, more likely.

I subsequently reiterated that view as well as the fact that the relatives who carried out the murder clearly acted under Cassander’s fiat. Thus, as the sources all subsequently relate, the murder of Olympias is Cassander’s responsibility.
It is only in Justin’s account that Cassander orders ‘others’ to kill her when the soldiers balk. Diodorus has the distressed relatives carry it out of their own volition “wishing to curry favour with Cassander as well as to avenge their dead, murdered the queen, who uttered no ignoble or womanish plea” although they are clearly aware of Cassander’s wishes in the matter. I will give additional reasons for preferring Diodorus’ account further on.
This has excited a farrago of words the aim of which is, in good part, to arrive at the above dismissal of the testimony of Justin as “fiction”. In the process several claims have been made; some few follow:

Xenophon wrote:If we strip away Justin’s ‘dramatics’, and his inaccuracies of detail about the means/weapon used that he almost certainly invented, then we are left with nothing of his account.
It is quite conceivable that Justin is simply drawing on Diodorus here. [ or the same source]…
Since he was probably familiar with Diodorus’ account, it is hardly surprising it “coheres” [i.e. Justin’s account with that of Diodorus].

Such claims deserve some scrutiny. Now, as I’ve pointed out, Justin’s account, not for the first or last time, coheres reasonably with Diodorus’ version. Xenophon would have it that Justin “simply drawing on Diodorus” here is “quite conceivable”. Further, the similarities between the two writers is “hardly surprising” because Justin was “probably familiar with Diodorus”. While not absolutely impossible, both are far more than improbable....
....Both Diodorus and Trogus wrote at near enough to the same time and just who finished what first is unknowable.
I think that is somewhat inaccurate. Diodorus has been demonstrated to have composed his work between 65 BC and 35 BC – 30 BC at the latest. Trogus wrote later during the reign of Augustus, who did not acquire power until after 30 BC. Trogus undoubtedly wrote after Diodorus, so my quoted statements above are correct. ( indeed you also state below that the two likely shared a common source)
In the instance under discussion (Olympias’ death), both Trogus and Diodorus share essentially the same information (and likely a source) and the differences that are apparent are a largely result of the respective epitomisers’ own agendas as mentioned above. For Diodorus this is his “moral programme” and so Olympias is reported as getting her just deserts because she does not behave as one properly should when accorded good fortune in the face of another’s utter misfortune (Eurydike). For Justin it is the topos of women behaving in a “womanish fashion” but facing severe adversity (death) in a fashion be[ne]fitting(sic) a man. Thus for Justin, Olympias’ behaviour on returning to Macedonia (the killings, etc.) is that typical of women. When it comes her turn to die she displays the other side of this coin and dies as well as any man of her time, indeed the death of a ‘king’ (by the blade). These are the ‘dramatics’ to which I originally referred; nothing to do with swords or stabbing. Diodorus, too, acknowledges this stating the matriarch “uttered no ignoble or womanish plea” (19.51.5)
If dying by the blade is ‘kingly’, doesn’t that make it likely that this is yet another of Justin’s (or Trogus) embellishments ? I’ll return to this shortly. As to “nothing to do with swords or stabbing”, in fact that was the whole point of preferring Justin’s version – so as to allege:-
If that is correct then I'd imagine the classic scene of Caesar's murder. The sword wounds would likely centre around the thorax / abdomen and back. We lack the rib bones (and shoulder bones) that would show these wounds (as with the cremated individual). On the other hand, it would not be unexpected to find strokes to the head / face and the hip area (possibly thigh) and none are evidenced. We might also expect the arm to have worn the odd stroke as reflex would see these used as protection no matter how stoic the frightful old girl was.”

You were alleging that she was stabbed, in order to try and explain the state of the Katsas skeleton – but then balked yourself that multiple stabbing could occur without skeletal injury.

With reference to the sword (‘gladius’), the argument that this was not even invented at the time of Olympias’ death somewhat passes my comprehension. Nothing whatsoever has been adduced to prove that Justin has “invented” the use of swords here other than that the galdius did not exist in 317/6. Trogus claims to have summarised various Greek histories to produce his universal history. As he did so he translated the Greek into Latin for his Roman audience. Trogus himself came from a military family (his father having served under Caesar, his grandfather against Sertorious). It is unremarkable in the extreme that were Olympias’ death described (by Trogus’ source) as having been by the sword that Trogus might well translate the Greek (xiphos, kopis, etc.) into that instantly recognisable Roman version ‘gladius’. Indeed he seems to have done so regularly unless we are to suppose that every time a sword appears in the Greek narrative that Justin has simply invented it (cf 9.7.4 where Philip pursues Alexander with a naked ‘gladius’ and 12.7.16 where Alexander cuts the Gordion Knot with his ‘gladius’). Asserting the supposed “invention” of a gladius by Justin in Olympias’ murder is frail justification for dismissing source material as “demonstrable fiction”.
It was you who claimed a stabbing weapon such as the Roman ‘gladius’ was used, based on Justin’s use of the word. If that is what Justin meant – as you state from his use of :
“Justin writes confoderent which the translator here has rendered as blows. Justin is speaking of sword inflicted wounds and the natural meaning of "to strike down by stabbing, to pierce, stab, transfix" is here indicated”, then if Justin really did have in mind stabbing by a Roman-type stabbing sword/gladius that would be familiar to him, then he is guilty of an anachronism, as I said. However in addition to its meaning as a technical sword type, ‘gladius’ can also have a generic meaning of just sword generally, and used in translation perhaps going back via Trogus to a Greek source, as you say. I’d agree with you that a generic translation is likely, though this doesn’t explain ‘confoderent’.
“ Justin, translating from the Greek, also renders the weapon as a "gladius" which clearly it is not. Given that it was the relatives attacking the old matriarch, we aren't to know which sword this was.”
....save that if it was a Greek type sword of the types commonly in use – curved ‘machaira/kopis’/chopper, or ‘xiphos’/straight sword, both were ‘cutting/chopping’ swords rather than thrusting weapons. The usual blow inflicted by these weapons was a downward cut, which appears so often in the iconography that it has a name: the ‘Harmodius’ blow, from the famous statue of the Tyrant killers using just such a technique.

Still, all this is academic anyway. Firstly it is likely that the use of swords is a fictional embellishment for the following reasons.

1. It was probably chosen by Justin/Trogus/their source in order to make their point and confer a ‘Kingly’ death on Olympias. ( see above) No other source mentions swords.
2. It is highly unlikely that a crowd of civilian relatives, who went along to witness the execution, would be armed with swords and certainly not the wives, mothers, and children – who could of course participate in a stoning.( which Pausanias gives as the means of execution)
3. In our corpus of source material for the period, there is reference to around a dozen or so executions. In the majority of cases, the means are not specified, implying the reader would know. In six or so cases it is specified as stoning, with one, the military execution of Philotas, given alternately as stoning/spearing. In no case is execution by sword specified, implying this is indeed a later fictional embellishment.

Given that Diodorus does not specify the means, this suggests that he is following his (common?) source more closely than Justin, since the exact means probably was not specified originally. Diodorus’ account is therefore to be preferred.

Secondly, it is entirely academic for whether she was stoned, killed by sword blows, or even (unlikely) by multiple stabs to the abdomen, then there will have been damage to the extant skeleton, as you yourself acknowledge :

On the other hand, it would not be unexpected to find strokes to the head / face and the hip area (possibly thigh) and none are evidenced. We might also expect the arm to have worn the odd stroke as reflex would see these used as protection no matter how stoic the frightful old girl was.”

That said, I reiterate that no marks on the arm or skull would indicate that these were not attacked which might well be somewhat incongruous.

As I said, it is hard to understand all this source analysis, unless as a purely academic exercise, for all ( except Taphoi) are agreed that Olympias almost certainly did not go to Amphipolis, nor was she executed there........

There is simply no evidence that the Katsas skeleton suffered the violent death Olympias suffered according to our sources, ( as the excavators have affirmed).
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:Quite why we need this lengthy ‘quellenforschung’ I am not sure. We debated the details of the accounts of Olympias’ death on pp 4-5 in depth. A ‘second bite at the cherry’ doesn’t seem to add anything…
It is no "second bite" at any "cherry"; more a firm rebuttal of your more than strained rejection of Justin based on an erroneous view that as the gladius didn't exist in 316, Justin was engaging in "fiction". And given claims that Justin was simply working from Diodorus, it appeared somewhat more than necessary.
Xenophon wrote:It is only in Justin’s account that Cassander orders ‘others’ to kill her when the soldiers balk. Diodorus has the distressed relatives carry it out of their own volition “wishing to curry favour with Cassander as well as to avenge their dead, murdered the queen, who uttered no ignoble or womanish plea” although they are clearly aware of Cassander’s wishes in the matter.
Diodorus does nothing of the sort. The Sicilian simply notes that the relatives carried out the murder to curry favour with Kassandros after the soldiers could not. Again, it is inconceivable that the relatives acted without Kassandros’ fiat for he was demonstrably concerned over the Macedonians’ reaction. The relatives do not have to do this “of their own volition” to curry favour (which is your clear implication). They curry just as much favour by carrying out Kassandros’ instructions where soldiers could not. Justin, who cannot be dismissed as “fiction” (as I’ve demonstrated) – no matter how much you’d like it to be so – reports that the second group (the relatives which we know from your "preferred" source) acted under Kassandros’ fiat
Xenophon wrote:I think that is somewhat inaccurate. Diodorus has been demonstrated to have composed his work between 65 BC and 35 BC – 30 BC at the latest. Trogus wrote later during the reign of Augustus, who did not acquire power until after 30 BC. Trogus undoubtedly wrote after Diodorus, so my quoted statements above are correct. ( indeed you also state below that the two likely shared a common source)
Which statements might they be? “That Justin is simply drawing on Diodorus here” or that as Justin “was probably familiar with Diodorus’ account, it is hardly surprising it ‘coheres’” with that of Diodorus? If either one, then I’d suggest a re-reading of the 1,300 word essay. If Trogus was well aware of the work of another writer, that writer was Livy. In part, this is why Trogus produced a universal history whose focus was not Rome. But that is another subject.

I fail to see what Trogus and Diodorus sharing a source (Hieronymus or an intermediary based on him) in their writings has to do with Justin using Diodorus.

Xenophon wrote:If dying by the blade is ‘kingly’, doesn’t that make it likely that this is yet another of Justin’s (or Trogus) embellishments ? I’ll return to this shortly. As to “nothing to do with swords or stabbing”, in fact that was the whole point of preferring Justin’s version…


As in kings being expected to die in battle – something both Olympias and Euridyke countenced by taking the field. The embellishments, for the nth time, revolve around the “womanish” behaviour and the “manly” behaviour. Justin’s description of Olympias leaning on her maids plays into this. I at no stage claimed the use of swords as embellishment. That was yourself in describing it as “invention” and thus enabling yourself to dismiss unwanted testimony as fiction which Justin’s testimony is not.

Xenophon wrote:However in addition to its meaning as a technical sword type, ‘gladius’ can also have a generic meaning of just sword generally, and used in translation perhaps going back via Trogus to a Greek source, as you say. I’d agree with you that a generic translation is likely, though this doesn’t explain ‘confoderent’.
I’m glad we agree for otherwise we must consign Demosthenes falling upon his “gladius” (Just.4.5.10) to fiction as well the other instances given. On that basis we can ignore the remarks immediately before your acceptance that Trogus was using the term for the Greek he found in his sources. Given that sword is indicated, the only reason it doesn’t explain confoderent is if one believes it is not possible to stab with a sword.
Xenophon wrote:Given that Diodorus does not specify the means, this suggests that he is following his (common?) source more closely than Justin, since the exact means probably was not specified originally. Diodorus’ account is therefore to be preferred.
Merely claiming so does not make it so. It is far more likely that for what must have been a dramatic story at the time, the means was mentioned by primary sources. Yet again, in the process of summarising matters are left out rather than added. What is left out is at the whim of the summariser. Diodurus mentions methods for both Philip Arrhidaeus and Eurydike – Justin does not. It might just as easily have been the other way around as it is in this instance. For Diodorus to then not bother including the means for Olympias having done so for the preceding pair is hardly surprising. For example, we would dearly love to know the exact dispositions and strengths of Antigonos’ forces at Gabiene. Diodorus, probably because he couldn’t bother, leaves it out when only several pages earlier he’d given us chapter and verse (at Paraetekene). This is his way. Not only that, Diodorus is severely compressing matters here (see remarks on chapter 52). There clearly was the possibility of another “assembly” at which Olympias wished to be “judged before the all the Macedonians” (19.51.4). All this has been shortened to near incomprehensibility. But that is the subject of another post…

I’d like to see the argument for why not mentioning a method here indicates Diodorus is more closely following a source.
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 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by agesilaos »

You were claiming that the Etesian winds, which are part of the Summer weather pattern, blew in Spring, when the Winter weather pattern is in fact applicable.[ which is what I meant by ‘Winter’]. The weather patterns don’t change until late –April/early May [see above]. I really don’t think our sources narrative can be stretched so as to have Olympias, who surrendered “As Spring came on”[Diod XIX.50] i.e. February or early March still alive as late as May, when the Etesian winds would be available to waft her to Athens.
When the dates May to October are stated it is clear what I am stating. Diodoros does NOT say that Olympias surrendered as ‘spring came on’ but that the situation became desperate.
Diod XIX 50 iff
As spring came on and their want increased from day to day, many soldiers gathered together and appealed to Olympias to let them go because of the lack of supplies. Since she could neither issue any food at all nor break the siege, she permitted them to withdraw. [2] Kassandros , after welcoming all the deserters and treating them in a most friendly fashion, sent them to the various cities; for he hoped that when the Macdonians learned from them how weak Olympias was, they would despair of her cause. [3] And he was not mistaken in his surmise…Olympias when she saw that most of her friends had gone over to Kassandros and that those who remained were not strong enough to come to her aid , attempted to launch a penteres and by this means to save herself and her friends. [5] When, however, a deserter brought news of this attempt to the enemy and Kassandros sailed up and took the ship, Olympias recognising that her situation was beyond hope , sent envoys to treat for terms.
So , between spring ‘coming on and the surrender, there is time for deserters to be treated well and get home, and the cities drop their allegiance and Olympias to discover this. For her to attempt a ship bourne escape which she must have judged viable. Then for difficult negotiations before the surrender. Then there are the columns sent to Pella and Amphipolis, report of the resistance of Amphipolis and a return letter from Pydna. The show trial has to be arranged and then the offer of escape from Kassandros. This will all occupy some time, though I expect you will claim it could be accomplished in a trice, that will have to remain a matter of choice. It will take even more time if the relatives of all Olympias’ victims are to be gathered to form the mob you , but no source, keep mentioning. I would think a much smaller group sufficient, a score or less would suffice to sway the already biased trial and kill an old woman by whatever means. The season was more advanced than you posit.
Ancient galleys, because of their lower oar ports did not have much freeboard ( despite having ‘askoma’/leather bags over the lowest ports) and could not handle waves much over a metre, and also because any higher would throw out timing under oar, with some oars biting into crests and others troughs. Beaufort force 4 would produce waves of this order of magnitude, and hence would represent maximum conditions for galleys. ( By comparison Force 5, with reefed sails, is the limit for small boats generally).
Clearly from general reading and your own experience; Olympias, the replica trieres, sails happily in 20 knt winds (Beaufort 5) and had a run at 25knts but takes water at 22knt winds Beaufort 6. Morrison, Coates and Rankov, ‘The Athenin Triereme’Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2000, p261 ff.

That the annual mobilisation normally took place at the 'Xandika festival' celebrating the Spring equinox is not my 'theory', but established fact, as I understand it.

Much error stems from what people ‘understand’, again no reference to the sources of this understanding. Here is the evidence;
Polybios XXIII, 10, xvii
The Macedonians make offerings to Xanthus as a hero, and perform a purification of the army with horses fully equipped. . . .
ἐναγίζουσιν οὖν τῷ Ξανθῷ Μακεδόνες καὶ καθαρμὸν ποιοῦσι σὺν ἵπποις ὡπλισμένοις. —

Livy XXXX 6
It happened to be the time for the lustration of the army. The following is a description of the ceremony. The body of a bitch was divided in the middle, the forepart with the head was placed on the right side of the road and the hinder part with the entrails on the left, and the troops marched between them. [2] In front of the column were borne the insignia of all the kings of Macedonia from its remotest origin; then followed the king and his children; [3] next to them the king's own cohort and his bodyguard, the Macedonian phalanx bringing up the rear. [4] The two princes rode on either side of their father; Perseus was now thirty years old and Demetrius five years his junior, the former in the prime of manhood, the latter in the flower of youth. The father would have been fortunate in his maturer offspring if only he had been wise and sensible. [5] When the purificatory rite was completed it was the custom for the army to go through maneuvers and after being formed into two divisions to engage in a sham-fight. [6] The two princes were appointed to command in this mimic contest, but there was no make-believe about the fighting, it looked like a struggle for the crown, so fiercely did they engage. Many wounds were caused by their staves and nothing was wanting but swords to give the actual appearance of war. [7] The division which Demetrius commanded was by far the better one. Perseus was intensely annoyed, but his wiser friends were delighted. That circumstance in itself, they said, would afford grounds for incriminating the young man.

Hesych. II p. 70: Ξανθικὰ ἑορτὴ Μακεδόνων, Ξανθικοῦ μηνὸς ἡ ἀγομένη .
ἐστὶ δὲ καθάρσιον τῶν στρατευμάτων.
Xanthika a festival of the Macedonians celebrated in the month of Xanthikos. It is a purification of the army.
You will note that there is no indication of the month in Polybios or Livy so no guarantee Hesychios has not deduced it . None say when in the month it came, although the full moon would be a reasonable guess (this is also the vernal equinox). The evidence is pretty thin for a regular lustration and may only be an Antigonid institution. The Argaead examples are either disguised , the various mentions of sham battles, or definitely not in Xanthikos; Perdikkas’ lustration.

The picture is further muddied by Polybios’ fragment mentioning fully caparisoned horses, and Livy’s description, which ought to be dependent not mentioning cavalry, unless the ‘regia cohors’ is a unique term for the basilike ile.

The trouble with a full muster in March/early April is that the grain will not be ripe until May, which will put enormous strain on winter stocks if this is an annual event. Perhaps a representative lustration should be understood, which would make more sense in supply terms and the mock battle, 10,000 a side would be tough to referee.

In any case if you want Kassandros to have celebrated this festival Olympias cannot be dead before April 316 or mid-March 315. Later, if you want him to have raced off with an army that had just finished a hard winter’s campaigning. Agreed, Kassandros favoured rapid action, but he also knew the limitations of his men, nor would it be sound policy to abandon Macedonia until he was certain about events in Asia. Alexander was no great problem, it may be that the timing of Kassandros move to the Peloponnese coincides with news from Asia.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Post Reply