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

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 »

Alexias wrote:Even if Diodorus is describing a tomb and not a pyre...
Arrggh! You didn't 'go there' did you Alexias??!!
Alexias wrote: The chances are we will never definitely know for whom the tomb was built, and given the state of the Greek economy the archaeologists have a great deal more to worry about.
And with that I am in agreement. The likelihood is that there will be no identification or, at best, not one without interminable doubt attached to it (witness the "royal tumulus"). Greek archaeologists - and Greeks in general - do indeed have much more to concern them. It is an impossibly bad situation and one worsening by the day. My sympathies to our Greek members and hopes that some sensible solution will be arrived at.
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
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: Paralus, it seems, is not up to speed with forensic archaeological practices. Whether damage to a skeleton is pre or post mortem, or subsequent to burial, or even old healed wounds are all easily determined - even in the case of a cremated skeleton such as that of Philip II. Similarly it seems that these two are not familiar with the sort of skeletal trauma that would have occurred from being stoned to death [ or even hacked to death. Justin's somewhat lurid version is likely to be less accurate, not least because public execution, as opposed to military execution, in Macedon was usually by stoning, but the trauma would be similar in death by hacking.]
While I am no forensic archaeologist I am reasonably up with forensic archaeological practices; enough at least to realise what is possible. The point is the two traditions regarding the method of death. Pausanias does note the stoning. The two extant narrative sources do not:
Diodorus 19.51.2-5
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. 3 He acted thus, not for the purpose of securing her safety, but in order that she, condemning herself to exile and meeting death on the voyage, might seem to have met a punishment that was deserved; for he was acting with caution both because of her rank and because of the fickleness of the Macedonians. 4 As Olympias, however, refused to flee but on the contrary was ready to be judged before all the Macedonians, Cassander, 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, sent to her two hundred soldiers who were best fitted for such a task, ordering them to slay her as soon as possible. 5 They, accordingly, broke into the royal house, but when they beheld Olympias, overawed by her exalted rank, they withdrew with their task unfulfilled. 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.

Justin 14.6.6-12
But Cassander, on summoning the people to an assembly, to inquire "what they would wish to be done with Olympias," induced the parents of those whom she had killed to put on mourning apparel, and expose her cruelties; 7 when the Macedonians, exasperated by their statements, decreed, without regard to her former majesty, that she should be put to death ; 8 utterly unmindful that, by the labours of her son and her husband, they had not only lived in security among their neighbours, but had attained to vast power, and even to the conquest of the world. 9 Olympias, seeing armed men advancing towards her, bent upon her destruction, went voluntarily to meet them, dressed in her regal apparel, and leaning on two of her maids. 10 The executioners, on beholding her, struck with the recollection of her former royal dignity, and with the names of so many of their kings, that occurred to their memory in connection with her, stood still, 11 until others were sent by Cassander to despatch her; she, at the same time, not shrinking from the sword or the blow, or crying out like a woman, but submitting to death like the bravest of men, and suitably to the glory of her ancient race, so that you might have perceived the soul of Alexander in his dying mother. 12 As she was expiring, too, she is said to have settled her hair, and to have covered her feet with her robe, that nothing unseemly might appear about her.
Diodorus and Trogus share Hieronymus as an ultimate source and Trogus (or his source) can be shown to have combined Duris in books 13-15 as well. Both writers record that Cassander's assembly condemned the Queen to death. Both writers relate that two attempts had to be made on her life at Cassander's order - the first blanched at the task and the second carried it out. Justin does not identify the two groups; Diodorus does. Essentially the narratives agree and we need not concern ourselves with Justin's 'over the top' additions of the "soul of Alexander", leaning on her royal attendants and the like; it is the basic details that matter rather than the dramatic embellishments used to counterpoint his picture of Olympias earlier (as acting "like a woman"). What neither writer records is Cassander ordering Olympias stoned to death. Diodorus does not record the method of death only that soldiers were ordered to do so first and then the relatives successfully did the job. Trogus records that the job was accomplished by sword - and not "hacked to death".Given that neither record that stoning was to be the manner of death, Trogus is, in my view, more likely. Moreover, Cassander wanted it done quickly and out of sight of "the Macedonians" as he was suspicious of their fickleness (witness the first group which did not carry out the task). Hence the description of breaking into the royal quarters to kill the Queen.

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.

I too am in wholehearted agreement with Zebedee's recent posts.
Last edited by Paralus on Thu Jul 02, 2015 2:55 pm, edited 3 times 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
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 »

Similarly it seems that these two are not familiar with the sort of skeletal trauma that would have occurred from being stoned to death [ or even hacked to death. Justin's somewhat lurid version is likely to be less accurate, not least because public execution, as opposed to military execution, in Macedon was usually by stoning, but the trauma would be similar in death by hacking.]
Just name your sources for this assertion and we will then judge whether are indeed guilty of ‘positivist fallacy’.

For the record this seems to me to be a conflation of the two versions of the execution of Philotas in Arrian (javelin) and Curtius stoning, I will let the members come to their own conclusions but please reply, Xenophon it gets a tad tiring when you flounce from every thread and then will not engage on another.

I did miss the 'as soon as possible' for the first failed attempt and ill not wriggle that was my error but do read the surrounding material and if you cannot see tat Kassandros moved from Macedon after the execution of Olympias I will have to refer readers to your interpretation of a former comment of mine :) edited to add this confession
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

Zebedee wrote:
Taphoi wrote:. In the meantime I note that many other confident hypotheses have fallen: does anyone remember the cenotaph? Nearchus? Laomedon? That Trojan war hero? (I see that someone does remember Hephaistion, but it will not be he.) If I wished to complain about others pursuing convictions, which I note that I do not, I would not lack ammunition.
Best wishes,
Andrew

Really Andrew? That's disingenuous and most deceitful of you to portray anything I said about Rhesos as 'confident'. On that note, I think I shall leave it. My posting record is short enough for those who have interest to let it speak for itself versus your clumsy and ungraceful comments there.
As I have made clear, I personally see nothing wrong with stating hypotheses confidently, but if you would like me to agree that you personally put forward your hypothesis unconfidently or indecisively or precariously or whatever, then I am happy to do so. Perhaps we could simply agree that you were not very Rhesos positive!

Best wishes,

Andrew
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Zebedee »

Taphoi wrote: As I have made clear, I personally see nothing wrong with stating hypotheses confidently, but if you would like me to agree that you personally put forward your hypothesis unconfidently or indecisively or precariously or whatever, then I am happy to do so. Perhaps we could simply agree that you were not very Rhesos positive!

Best wishes,

Andrew
Try 'appropriately caveated'.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

Zebedee wrote:
Taphoi wrote: As I have made clear, I personally see nothing wrong with stating hypotheses confidently, but if you would like me to agree that you personally put forward your hypothesis unconfidently or indecisively or precariously or whatever, then I am happy to do so. Perhaps we could simply agree that you were not very Rhesos positive!

Best wishes,

Andrew
Try 'appropriately caveated'.
Out of concern for your position I cannot agree that, for, firstly it is not an antonym for confident, the term to which you have objected so forcibly. You might have been both confident in your statement of the Rhesos hypothesis and yet have caveated it appropriately. Secondly, it does not distinguish between the way that you put forward your hypothesis and the way I put forward mine. For I also caveated my hypothesis appropriately, for example with the condition that the dating of the tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century BC should be correct.

Best wishes,
Andrew
Zebedee
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:29 am

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Zebedee »

Taphoi wrote: Out of concern for your position I cannot agree that, for, firstly it is not an antonym for confident, the term to which you have objected so forcibly. You might have been both confident in your statement of the Rhesos hypothesis and yet have caveated it appropriately. Secondly, it does not distinguish between the way that you put forward your hypothesis and the way I put forward mine. For I also caveated my hypothesis appropriately, for example with the condition that the dating of the tomb to the last quarter of the 4th century BC should be correct.

Best wishes,
Andrew
When someone says that a thing is 'unlikely', it takes a curious soul to interpret that as a 'confident' hypothesis. But your interpretation of a great number of things is very different to mine, I think we've established that on a second thread now. I certainly admire elements of the confidence which allows you to state, confidently, that remains of a woman in her 50s will be proof of Olympias with equal facility as you can state, confidently, that the remains of a woman in her 60s are proof of Olympias. Your confidence in the evidence always pointing to Olympias is one thing which remains unchanging.

I think we're done here? Hopefully news come the autumn and some better explanations to build suppositions upon. Too many unanswered questions yet for me. I mean, if one was perversely attached to a theory, a later interment on a pre-existing cremation doesn't even rule out Rhesos yet. Or should I be seeing the bones of a cultic priestess to confidently explain away inconvenient aspects? Who knows? Enjoy your summer!
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:
What neither writer records is Cassander ordering Olympias stoned to death. Diodorus does not record the method of death only that soldiers were ordered to do so first and then the relatives successfully did the job. Trogus records that the job was accomplished by sword - and not "hacked to death".Given that neither record that stoning was to be the manner of death, Trogus is, in my view, more likely. Moreover, Cassander wanted it done quickly and out of sight of "the Macedonians" as he was suspicious of their fickleness (witness the first group which did not carry out the task). Hence the description of breaking into the royal quarters to kill the Queen.
As you say, Diodorus does not record the form of execution, leaving us with the two alternatives of Pausanias (stoning) and Justin/Trogus (sword blows), which is essentially hacked to death [see below]. Had the execution been carried out by the soldiers first sent, then I would agree with you that sword might be considered more likely, but the actual deed, upon which our sources agree was carried out fairly spontaneously, was most probably performed by the outraged relatives of Cassander's supporters murdered by Olympias ( some 100 or so victims). Such a mob would be unlikely to be armed with swords, even if many of them were soldiers or ex-soldiers, because they were presumably not expecting to carry out the execution. That tends to favour stoning. However, as I said previously, whichever method was used, an assault by multiple assailants in either case would lead to severe skeletal trauma - which is simply not present on the Kasta skeleton.
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.
I don't think this analogy applies, and rather falls into the category of 'special pleading'. Caesar was murdered by daggers - short thrusting weapons - concealed beneath clothing. In Justin's scenario Olympias is murdered by sword "blows" i.e. hacked to death. This would be so for several reasons. Firstly, the swords in question would have been the machaira/kopis or xiphos, both weapons weighted at the end and optimised for cutting/chopping blows rather than thrusts, and which were machete-like in use. Secondly, the multiple assailants will have crowded around, and the majority of the blows must of necessity been downward cuts ( the most frequent type of blow in all cases). Any fatal blow in such circumstances must be to the head. You are quite right that in addition we would expect blows to the long limb bones, especially the arms. As you rightly point out, these invariably occur in such circumstances due to instinctive throwing up of the arms. In legal jargon these are called "defensive wounds". In addition, Where a mob kills someone there are invariably superfluous blows struck after death, often to the point of mutilation, and we should expect to see evidence of violence from head to foot.

Even had thrusting weapons been used, these would have caused skeletal damage - quite small nicks to bones are again easily discerned, and apparently nothing of this sort is present.

Agesilaos wrote:
Just name your sources for this assertion and we will then judge whether are indeed guilty of ‘positivist fallacy’.
I assume you mean methods of execution in Macedon ? Many modern sources refer to stoning as "The traditional Macedonian method of execution" e.g. Richard Gabriel in "The Ancient World" p.60, and this is just what we would expect. In a primitive society, or peasant village, stoning is convenient because the means are usually readily to hand, and it involves everyone, thus spreading any guilt. It is used the world over in such societies to this very day and was and is the most common form of execution. A quick check ( I don't have time for more) of our Alexander sources reveals a dozen or more executions. In some instances we are merely told the victim was "put to death" with the means unspecified. The two most common methods where specified are stoning and spearing, the latter invariably in an army context, hence clearly a military form. The majority of victims are stoned to death. In some cases there is uncertainty or disagreement between sources, such as Philotas or Olympias. My suspicion is that in such cases the actual form is unknown and the author has made a 'best guess', knowing that stoning or spearing were the most common.
For the record this seems to me to be a conflation of the two versions of the execution of Philotas in Arrian (javelin) and Curtius stoning, I will let the members come to their own conclusions but please reply, Xenophon it gets a tad tiring when you flounce from every thread and then will not engage on another.
I don't 'flounce' from every thread. Rather I am forced to withdraw rather than go on endlessly and interminably round and round in circles. I respond whenever something new is posted.
I did miss the 'as soon as possible' for the first failed attempt and will not wriggle that was my error but do read the surrounding material and if you cannot see that Kassandros moved from Macedon after the execution of Olympias I will have to refer readers to your interpretation of a former comment of mine
For the 'n'th time, I didn't say that Cassander necessarily moved south prior to Olympias' execution. What I said ( more than once now - see previous page) was:-
On what basis do you assert that Cassander did not depart for the south with his army until after the death of Olympias ? As I said, we have no information on his immediate movements. Olympias’ death might easily have occurred after his departure, especially if, as was his wont, Cassander was moving fast trying to surprise Alexander as he had Olympias.
Evidence for your statement is still not forthcoming, and I don't think anything can be inferred from Diodorus' sequence of events, which is clearly out of strict chronological order in places. My point is that we cannot say one way or the other, not that it is overly important.

I agree with Zebedee:
I think we're done here?
I don't believe anything further can usefully be said, unless someone has something new to add........
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 »

Clearly another subject Agesilaos doesn't know much about are winds and sailing. In simple generalisation, sailing from an East coast port such as Pydna to to the south would be difficult but not insuperable. Sailing from a north coast port such as Eion would be, with the added dangers of being blown onto a lee-shore and wrecked.
I will assume that despite your aversion to trusting the order of events in Diodoros you are willing to accept his chronological marker that ‘ spring was coming on’ when the situation within Pydna became critical. There followed a period of desertions, cannibalism and an attempted escape before Olympias surrendered. We should then be in early spring, certainly by the time there has been a trial and a Machiavellian offer of another sea borne escape. Which , as a wind expert, you claim cannot possibly be from Amphipolis due to a prevailing southerly and the dreaded lee-shore.
According to Arrian Alexander set out in ‘early spring’ with his supply fleet coasting this very ‘dreaded lee-shore’
Arrian I 11 ii
ἅμα δὲ τῷ ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ ἐξελαύνει ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντου
At the very beginning of spring he set out for the Hellespont.
Clearly Alexander’s fleet managed to sail in exactly the same area; he moves through Amphipolis; at the same time of year, as you claim it would be impossible. We have afurther check on the time of year as Plutarch implies that Granikos was fought at the beginning of Daisios Alex XVI ii
(for in the month of Daesius the kings of Macedonia were not wont to take the field with an army). This objection Alexander removed by bidding them call the month a second Artemisius; Perrin.
δεῖν φυλάξασθαι ( Δαισίου γὰρ οὐκ εἱώθεισαν οἱ βασιλεῖ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐξάγειν τὴν στρατιάν, τοῦτομὲν ἐπηνωρθώσατο κελεύσας δεύτερoν Ἀρτεμίσιον ἄγειν
According to Parker Dubberstein, Daisios 333 began on 4 May so alexander must have been sailing along the forbidden coast in April since it took more than 30 days to reach Granikos.

I might remind you of this sage advice…
In testing hypotheses one should bear in mind the following advice:

1. Search for evidence which is contrary to your beliefs, don't just stop when you think you have found something to support them.
2. Try to consider hypotheses that may conflict with those beliefs.
3. Be careful to consider contrary evidence as objectively as you can, don't just merely 'explain it away', ignore it, or distort it.
‘Physician heal thyself.’ A simple admission that you were in error will do.

Next the truth about Macedonian executions, ie a look at the ancient evidence rather than something remembered from a generalist modern book.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
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 »

But first that evidence that you seem unable to find for yourself
Diodoros XIX
52 1 As for Cassander, now that his affairs had succeeded according to his intentions, he began to embrace in his hopes the Macedonian kingdom. For this reason he married Thessalonicê, who was Philip's daughter and Alexander's half-sister, since he desired to establish a connection with the royal house. 2 He also founded on Pallenê a city called Cassandreia after his own name, uniting with it as one city the cities of the peninsula, Potidaea, and a considerable number of the neighbouring towns. He also settled in this city those of the Olynthians who survived, not few in number. 3 Since a great deal of land, and good land too, was included within the boundaries of Cassandreia, and since Cassander was very ambitious for the city's increase, it quickly made great progress and became the strongest of the cities of Macedonia. 4 Cassander had determined to do away with Alexander's son and the son's mother, Roxanê, so that there might be no successor to the kingdom; but for the present, since he wished to observe what the common people would say about the slaying of Olympias and since he had no news of Antigonus' success, he placed Roxanê and the child in custody, transferring them to the citadel of Amphipolis, in command of which he placed Glaucias, one of his most trusted henchmen. Also he took away the pages who, according to custom, were being brought up as companions of the boy, and he ordered that he should no longer have royal treatment but only such as was proper for any ordinary person of private station. 5 After this, already conducting himself as a king in administering the affairs of the realm, he buried Eurydicê and Philip, the queen and king, and also Cynna, whom Alcetas had slain, in Aegae as was the royal custom. After honouring the dead with funeral games, he enrolled those of the Macedonians who were fit for military service, for he had decided to make a campaign into the Peloponnesus. 6 While Cassander was engaged with these matters, 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. Leaving Thessaly and taking over the troops led by Aeacides, he withdrew into Aetolia, believing that he could wait there with greatest safety and observe the changes in the situation; for as it chanced he was on friendly terms with this people.
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, and he had occupied strategically situated cities and districts. Cassander crossed Thessaly without loss, but when he found the pass at Thermopylae guarded by Aetolians, he with difficulty dislodged them and entered Boeotia. 2 Summoning from all sides those of the Thebans who survived, he undertook to re-establish Thebes,
Thus Kassandros re-concentrated his army after Polyperchon had slipped away having learned ‘of the death of Olympias’ and went to deal with his remaining opponent, Alexander moving from Macedonia. This is the chronologically ordered narrative complete with causation, Polyperchon despairs having heard of Olympias’ death. A look at a map…forgot nothing on a map actually needs to be where it is shown… nevertheless Azorios is described as being in Perrhaibaia, had Polyperchon remained there he would threaten Kassandros’ rear were the narrative not in chronological order (the measures Kassandros takes to demonstrate he is acting as a ruler [only italicised] is, indeed, not chronological but here we are back to the main narrative). Hope that is clear to you now.

edited to further clarify with formatting
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by Taphoi »

Zebedee wrote:...I certainly admire elements of the confidence which allows you to state, confidently, that remains of a woman in her 50s will be proof of Olympias with equal facility as you can state, confidently, that the remains of a woman in her 60s are proof of Olympias. Your confidence in the evidence always pointing to Olympias is one thing which remains unchanging.
In my article on "An Identity Crisis for the Amphipolis Tomb" first published on 25th January I discussed the feasible age range of Olympias in some detail in the light of the known facts. You can find the article on my page here https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and it was also published online in the Greek Reporter and on the Mediterraneo Antiguo website. I concluded that Olympias could have been as young as 53 at death or as old as her later sixties. Therefore there is nothing inconsistent in my allowing that either a woman in her fifties or sixties could be Olympias. Sixty is about the peak of the probability distribution.
Best wishes,
Andrew
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Olympias and the Katsas Tomb at Amphipolis

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote: In my article on "An Identity Crisis for the Amphipolis Tomb" first published on 25th January I discussed the feasible age range of Olympias in some detail in the light of the known facts. You can find the article on my page here https://independent.academia.edu/AndrewChugg and it was also published online in the Greek Reporter and on the Mediterraneo Antiguo website. I concluded that Olympias could have been as young as 53 at death or as old as her later sixties. Therefore there is nothing inconsistent in my allowing that either a woman in her fifties or sixties could be Olympias. Sixty is about the peak of the probability distribution.
Andrew, it would benefit the debate here at Pothos if you could quote from your online articles rather than just linking to them. That way people can respond directly to your posts rather than having to scan an article for the pertinent information and then copying it here as a quote (in order to answer). I was going to reply myself but the copy and paste function was quite screwed up and it would have been quite time consuming to fix the "paste'. I appreciate your consideration in this. :)

Best Regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
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:I don't think this analogy applies, and rather falls into the category of 'special pleading'. Caesar was murdered by daggers - short thrusting weapons - concealed beneath clothing. In Justin's scenario Olympias is murdered by sword "blows" i.e. hacked to death. This would be so for several reasons. Firstly, the swords in question would have been the machaira/kopis or xiphos, both weapons weighted at the end and optimised for cutting/chopping blows rather than thrusts, and which were machete-like in use.
It is not "special pleading". As ever, it comes down to what is actually written. That you choose to see "blows" as indicating "hacking" is your view (dare I say it "special pleading"). 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. 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.

The kopis was indeed a curved, single edged "chopping" sword and regularly identified with cavalry use (for swinging, downward blows) and might be compared to a machete . Whereas a xiphos might be used in this fashion, it was a double edged straight blade and generally not terribly long. A thrusting and stabbing action is suited to such though that does not rule out swinging.

What is continually passed over is the fact that regardless of a condemnation in Cassander's army assembly, Cassander wanted this execution done swiftly and out of public view. His actions and orders clearly demonstrate this. The relatives, attempting to curry favour and in a similar position to Cassander (not needing this done in full public view in the event of a backlash), succeed where a select regular army group did not. Justin's version, stripped of its counterpointing exaggeration, is most likely correct. Olympias was stabbed/pierced through like a pin cushion.

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.
Xenophon wrote:I agree with Zebedee:
I think we're done here?
I don't believe anything further can usefully be said, unless someone has something new to add........
I believe Zebedee addressed that to Taphoi not to the thread at large. Nothing precludes you from also "being done here" with Taphoi but I fail to see whay that, and your rules for participation, should apply to others posting on this thread or forum. We haven't even made five pages yet!
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 »

Agesilaos wrote:
Clearly another subject Agesilaos doesn't know much about are winds and sailing. In simple generalisation, sailing from an East coast port such as Pydna to to the south would be difficult but not insuperable. Sailing from a north coast port such as Eion would be, with the added dangers of being blown onto a lee-shore and wrecked.
I will assume that despite your aversion to trusting the order of events in Diodoros you are willing to accept his chronological marker that ‘ spring was coming on’ when the situation within Pydna became critical. There followed a period of desertions, cannibalism and an attempted escape before Olympias surrendered. We should then be in early spring, certainly by the time there has been a trial and a Machiavellian offer of another sea borne escape.
The trouble is, we are not told how far into Spring these events extended - it could just as easily be "late" Spring as early. I'll return to this point later.
Which , as a wind expert, you claim cannot possibly be from Amphipolis due to a prevailing southerly and the dreaded lee-shore.
According to Arrian Alexander set out in ‘early spring’ with his supply fleet coasting this very ‘dreaded lee-shore’.
Arrian I 11 ii
ἅμα δὲ τῷ ἦρι ἀρχομένῳ ἐξελαύνει ἐφ᾽ Ἑλλησπόντου
At the very beginning of spring he set out for the Hellespont.
Clearly Alexander’s fleet managed to sail in exactly the same area; he moves through Amphipolis; at the same time of year, as you claim it would be impossible. We have a further check on the time of year as Plutarch implies that Granikos was fought at the beginning of Daisios Alex XVI ii
(for in the month of Daesius the kings of Macedonia were not wont to take the field with an army). This objection Alexander removed by bidding them call the month a second Artemisius; Perrin.
δεῖν φυλάξασθαι ( Δαισίου γὰρ οὐκ εἱώθεισαν οἱ βασιλεῖ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἐξάγειν τὴν στρατιάν, τοῦτομὲν ἐπηνωρθώσατο κελεύσας δεύτερoν Ἀρτεμίσιον ἄγειν

According to Parker Dubberstein, Daisios 333 began on 4 May so alexander must have been sailing along the forbidden coast in April since it took more than 30 days to reach Granikos.
Be careful with your triumphant crowing, lest you find you are not so much 'cock-of-the-walk' as feather duster! :lol: To begin with, your intended sarcasm falls quite flat. I am indeed quite knowledgeable when it comes to winds and sailing, for I have sailed all my life, all over the world, in everything from dinghies to racing catamarans to super-yachts to replica square rigged vessels and competed in International Races both short and long, and still do. In addition I am familiar with sailing the Aegean and Adriatic since for many years I sailed there each year.
For the benefit of non-sailors such as yourself, I shall explain matters. In simplistic general terms, a square-rigged vessel such as a trireme or Greek merchant vessel has a very poor upwind performance, and in most conditions cannot sail more than 90 degrees to the wind direction (under ideal conditions only, some vessels might 'climb' as high as 80 degrees to the wind direction). Square rigged vessels sail best with the wind broadly on the beam ( called 'reaching')

Consequently, with a southerly wind blowing ( and note: this is the prevailing wind, which would not be present all the time, just most of it.) a Greek ship could not get way from the coast around Eion ( a 'lee shore'), nor if it could get out to sea could it then voyage south to Athens against southerly winds.......

Alexander's supply fleet, on the other hand, heading east, would be largely on their best point of sail and 'reaching' to the Hellespont. :D

Not the same at all.......A voyage to Athens from Eion in Spring would indeed be impossible.
I might remind you of this sage advice…
In testing hypotheses one should bear in mind the following advice:

1. Search for evidence which is contrary to your beliefs, don't just stop when you think you have found something to support them.
2. Try to consider hypotheses that may conflict with those beliefs.
3. Be careful to consider contrary evidence as objectively as you can, don't just merely 'explain it away', ignore it, or distort it.
‘Physician heal thyself.’ A simple admission that you were in error will do.
I do indeed follow my own advice.
1. I did search for valid evidence that Olympias might not have been in Pydna at the time, but found none.
2. I considered your hypothesis that a voyage to Athens might commence at Eion, and concluded that such a voyage was impossible in practical terms.
3.There is no valid contrary evidence that I'm aware of that Olympias was anywhere other than in Pydna to be considered.

"A simple admission that you were in error will do." Indeed, you are grossly in error in this instance, but an admission of same will go far to wipe the egg from your face....to carry the poultry analogy further. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Next the truth about Macedonian executions, ie a look at the ancient evidence rather than something remembered from a generalist modern book.
This statement demonstrates that, as so often, you simply don' t seem to read and comprehend what is written properly. Firstly, since I quoted the reference page number, it could hardly be from memory. Secondly, that was but one example of a widely held view.Thirdly, I did a brief survey of ancient evidence in the sources and gave a brief analysis that showed that indeed the majority of executed Macedonian 'criminals' referred to were stoned to death.
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:
But first that evidence that you seem unable to find for yourself
I shan't re-quote Diodorus at length, since you have kindly posted it. I did indeed 'find' and consider this passage - as you should have realised from my own referencing of this part of Diodorus. I'm glad you also recognise that it is not in strict chronological order. Indeed, it is difficult to determine just what Cassander did and didn't do prior to his passage south, which will have been as early as possible in the campaigning season.

The one reasonably precise date we are given is :
"...he enrolled those of the Macedonians who were fit for military service, for he had decided to make a campaign into the Peloponnesus."
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.

Thus Kassandros re-concentrated his army after Polyperchon had slipped away having learned ‘of the death of Olympias’ and went to deal with his remaining opponent, Alexander moving from Macedonia. This is the chronologically ordered narrative complete with causation, Polyperchon despairs having heard of Olympias’ death. A look at a map…forgot nothing on a map actually needs to be where it is shown… nevertheless Azorios is described as being in Perrhaibaia, had Polyperchon remained there he would threaten Kassandros’ rear were the narrative not in chronological order (the measures Kassandros takes to demonstrate he is acting as a ruler [only italicised] is, indeed, not chronological but here we are back to the main narrative). Hope that is clear to you now.
Azorios was far to the south-west, in Northern Thessaly, on the Europus river and to the north of Eriteum. Polyperchon was not in a position to threaten anyone, since he was under siege there ! [Diod XIX.52.6]. It is possible that Cassander by-passed the place on his march south, so once again, no help there. We are no closer to determining when Cassander headed south, whether before or after Olympias' execution.
Post Reply