Macedonian Military Numbers

Discuss the wars of Alexander's successors

Moderator: pothos moderators

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

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

I notice yet another whine about digressions; I suggest the whiner looks at the source of these, his own contentious statements; what are we to do accept the word of someone who knows precious little and bothers to research even less or are we to challenge it?

I presume that you have decided to take your intellectual honesty very, very much less seriously on this thread. Do you intend to explain why you have labelled a silver coin from Mallos as a gold coin from Armenia and specifically Orontes? FYI No independent coinage for the satrapy is attested before Tigranes II c 95 BC.

I call lying to the forum the height of rudeness, (in fact I call it something much ruder); I also failed to detect a hint of apology for the offense you clearly caused the moderator, my guess, based on previous bleating about others' posts (mainly mine :twisted: :lol: ) is that the offence is cumulative and the last was only the final straw. Just grow a pair and apologise to her, you may feel yourself innocent but she is patently offended save the knee-jerk counter attacks for Paralus and myself to deal with, please. I am almost sure that after some reflection you will have arrived at this conclusion independently and may already have dealt with the matter by PM, in which case bravo.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Postby agesilaos » Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:04 pm
Numismatic evidence is indeed valuable you may recognise this

97-710974.jpg (41.83 KiB) Viewed 56 times


But not the description

ID: 710974
Type: Greek
Region: CILICIA
City: Mallus
Metal: Silver
Denomination: Stater
Struck / Cast: struck
Date Struck: BC Circa 385-333
Weight: 10.20 g
Die Axis: 2 h
Obverse Description: Bearded head of Herakles right, lion's skin tied around neck
Reverse Legend: ΜΑΛ
Reverse Description: Head of satrap (Tiribazos or Autophradates?) right, wearing Persian headdress
Primary Reference: SNG Levante 153 var. (no ethnic)
Reference2: SNG Levante Suppl. 25 (same obv. die)
Reference3: SNG France 396 (same dies)
Reference4: Winzer 10.4 (Tiribazos) var. (same); SNG Cop -; BMC 28; SNG VA 5716 var. (shield on obv.)
Photograph Credit: Classical Numismatic Group
Source: http://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=76202

Grade: EF, small die break in field on obverse
Notes: Sale: Triton IX, Lot: 974 Beautifully engraved dies (see Triton VII, lot 298, for another EF example from these dies that realized $12,000)

Website here http://www.coinproject.com/coin_detail.php?coin=275697

This tells us that you either have once again failed to check your post or have deliberately misrepresented the coin which you have labelled of Orontes. Kindly post where you sourced it then one can make a judgement on your incompetence or dishonesty. The Greek MAL was something of a giveaway ..
You really should be more careful before leaping into nasty name-calling and false accusations, because as we shall see it tells us no such thing......

I see that another digression will be necessary.( Sigh!) Whilst composing my reply to you, I remembered seeing Orontid coins somewhere and I simply Googled. Up came dozens of numismatic sites and I simply selected an image from one. I have no idea from where. However, in order to refute your not-so-nice accusations, I did a little more research.......

Ancient Anatolian Coins:

The coin I used ( gold, not silver, as is obvious) certainly appears to be the same as mine – but in that case the description you posted is in error in calling it silver, which should have warned you of possible inaccuracies.

The same coin I used is also illustrated on :

Armenian website: http://www.ria.am/am/armenians.html

Labelled : Sakavakiats Yervand A. (born and death was unknown), the king of BC 570-560-ies. – though the date is a bit suspect.
Another similar Gold coin, with the bust facing left is often labelled “Orontes I”. ( see below - next post)

Both appear here also, where both are labelled Orontes II, as well as Orontes I !( Obviously Wikimedia has obtained these images/descriptions from another numismatic site):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... of_Armenia

Not so certain is this label:

“Orontes or Artabazus (Classical Numismatic group):” ( Orontes seems to have been Artabazus' overlord at some point)

https://www.cngcoins.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=305

And your label is repeated here:

“Bearded head of Herakles right, lion's skin tied around neck / MAL, head of satrap (Tiribazos or Autophradates?) right, wearing Persian headdress. SNG Levante Suppl. 25, SNG France 396, BMC 28, SNG von Aulock 5716v.” Cilicia, Mallos AR Stater. ca 385-333 BC. “

Wildwinds site


Perhaps the most accurate label is this one:

"Head of HerakleHercules, lion-skin round neck. ΜΑΛ Conventional head of bearded satrap in low tiara."

Ancient coinage of Cilicia : http://snible.org/coins/hn/cilicia.html

Now the reason for this confusing labelling is not difficult to discern. Virtually all coins out there are illegally sourced, which means they have no archaeological provenance. Without that, unless there is an inscription, dating the coin or even identifying its subject become pure guesswork – hence the many guesses in this instance.

Does that mean that my attempt to illustrate Orontid coinage is inconclusive? Yes. That coin may, or may not, be of Orontes II.

Agesilaos makes all sorts of false accusations, and indulges in name-calling (yet again), but in fact he did exactly what I did, relied on a description of a coin from a single numismatic site, which is incorrect (the coin is gold not silver – but an understandable error when looking at a black-and-white photo)and inconclusive in reality, whereas expanding one’s research to a number of sites discovers the truth.

Fortunately, I can illustrate a coin which is undoubtedly Orontid, because it is inscribed so ! ( see below attachment of nude hoplite coin)

My point that independent coinage was produced ( as with rebellious and other Satraps), as a piece of evidence of the autonomy or semi-autonomy of Armenia at the time in question is still demonstrated and valid.
Attachments
Wildwinds Mallus coin similar to gold coin previously posted.JPG
Wildwinds Mallus coin similar to gold coin previously posted.JPG (36.82 KiB) Viewed 4699 times
Coin of Mallus in silver post 388 Head of Hercules and head of Satrap possibly Titibazus.jpg
Coin of Mallus in silver post 388 Head of Hercules and head of Satrap possibly Titibazus.jpg (95.81 KiB) Viewed 4699 times
Coin of Orontes I.JPG
Coin of Orontes I.JPG (41.12 KiB) Viewed 4699 times
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

....and some more illustrations that would not fit into the previous post.....

In order, they show a gold coin with profile facing left, usually identified as Orontes I, but sometimes as Orontes II

An enlargement labelled "Orontes I or Artabazus" ( Orontes seems to have been Artabazus' overlord at some time, or as suggested in one of the descriptions below, vice versa)

And finally, perhaps the most accurate label as just "head of Satrap"..........

Perhaps when Agesilaos has finished wiping ovum from his visage, he may have the grace to apologise.....but as usual, I won't hold my breath !! :lol:
Attachments
Gold coin of Orontes I ( from Wikipaedia).JPG
Gold coin of Orontes I ( from Wikipaedia).JPG (41.91 KiB) Viewed 4697 times
Gold coin of Orontes I or Artabazus.JPG
Gold coin of Orontes I or Artabazus.JPG (79.59 KiB) Viewed 4697 times
coin of Mallus showing head of Satrap.JPG
coin of Mallus showing head of Satrap.JPG (145.82 KiB) Viewed 4697 times
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Paralus wrote:
Xenophon wrote:
Xenophon wrote:As they'd been discharged from the Royal Army - this is in fact part of Heckel's argument but you seem unaware of it. That argument also does not support Perdikkas collecting 4,000 troops in Kilikia and distributing them to Neoptolemos and / or Alketas.
As i have pointed out previously , they had NOT been ‘discharged’, as they complain to Eumenes, according to [Justin XIV.3].

I'm afraid the passage of Justin you adduce does not support your position here. Justin, 14.3.8-10:


[The Argyraspides] pursued him with reproaches "for having involved them, when they were returning home after so many years of completed service, and with the fruits of so many enterprises, and when on the point of being disbanded, in fresh efforts and vast struggles in the field; for having deluded them, when they were recalled, as it were, from their own hearths, and from the very threshold of their country, with vain promises; and for not allowing them, after having lost all the gains of their fortunate service, to support quietly under their defeat the burden of a poor and unhappy old age."


Sounds very much as if the Argyraspides were of the opinion that they had been disbanded and had been recalled to service "form their own hearths" to which they were returning.
That’s not what the quotation says, which is “on the point of disbanding” and of course they were not recalled from their own hearths, for they never got anywhere near them – that is just exaggerated hyperbole, of course. Any unit disbandment would not take place until they arrived in Macedon, obviously.

Xenophon wrote:As to Crateus leaving behind four thousand of his veterans in Cilicia, I have already quoted Heckel in my post of Dec 9, top of page 6:

“I don’t think so ! For a start, Hammond’s firm view, repeated in several works, was that Craterus brought 6,000 veterans only across the Hellespont ( e.g. “Alexander's Veterans After His Death” p.55) and supported by Walbank (Hammond and Walbank “History of Macedonia 336-317 BC” say Craterus brought 6,000 of his veterans across the Hellespont, and that on the march he raised 4,000 infantry and 1,500 cavalry [p.113] )

Heckel too is of this view: Heckel p.69 “ The Wars of Alexander the Great” says of Craterus’ veterans“...Some of them would indeed reach their homeland but only to fight some more. Others would not advance beyond Cilicia before becoming embroiled in the Wars of the Successors.”
That is simply a statement by Heckel; not the argument for the statement. Were you aware of the reasoning behind this statement you'd also be aware that it in no way supports Perdikkas collecting this 4,000 on his way to Kappadokia to leave with Neoptolemos or Alketas. Again, I disagree with Heckel's view on this.
We must agree to differ then.....I have previously explained why on balance of probability, the 4,000 veterans were left in Cilicia ( and see Agesilaos quote of Heckel Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:30 pm, where he explains in an aside, his reasoning. This quote raises another point. If Cleitus raised a fleet in Cilicia, where did his marines come from? At full complement [40 per ship] they would have amounted to 9,600 heavy infantry and missile troops.....not to mention crews of 48,000 including 40,800 skilled rowers - not something to be found in abundance in Cilicia at that time. )


Xenophon wrote:....Except it is not a fact. Our Sources do not refer to the Silver Shields or even their commanders Antigenes and Teutamus being involved in “command decisions” at all in the campaign against Antigonus, nor at the battles of Parataikene or Gabiene [see e.g. Diod XVIII.21-31 and 39-43 ].


Diod. 18.60.6; 61.2 (with respct to the Argyraspides and their commanders):
"Therefore," he said, "I think that we must make ready a golden throne from the royal treasure, and that after the diadem, the sceptre, the crown, and the rest of the insignia have been placed on it, all the commanders must at daybreak offer incense to Alexander before it, hold the meetings of the council in its presence, and receive their orders in the name of the king just as if he were alive and at the head of his own kingdom." [...] After this those who exercised command would sit in the many chairs that had been placed about and take counsel together, deliberating upon the matters that from time to time required their attention.
Eumenes is concerned that the haughty Macedonian officers/commanders resented being subordinate to a Greek, and might kill him and take power themselves, and so comes up with a ploy, in which they receive their orders from him “in the name of the King “[the dead Alexander], which mollifies their pride. Military organisations are hierarchical, not committees, and at the end of the day Eumenes might consult his officers in council, but it is he alone who gives the orders and takes the “command decisions”.
19.12.14:
After much discussion in respect to this policy, they sent an ambassador from themselves to Antigenes and the Silver Shields, asking them to remove Eumenes from his command. 3 Since the Macedonians paid no heed to this message, Eumenes, after praising their loyalty, set out with the army...
This is simply an attempt to foment assassination and rebellion, which fails. This passage clearly states that it is Eumenes who is in command.
15.1-2:
Peucestes thought that because of the number of soldiers who followed him on the campaign and because of his high rank under Alexander he ought to have the supreme command; 2 but Antigenes, who was general of the Silver Shields, said that the right to make the selection ought to be granted to his Macedonians, since they had conquered Asia with Alexander and had been unconquered because of their valour.
Once again, this is just Antigenes and the Silver Shields staying loyal to Eumenes, or possibly that Antigenes had ambitions of his own. The outcome was that Eumenes retained sole command, not least because only he was authorised to receive monies from the treasury [15.5]
17.4:
Since this guard because of its length required no small number of soldiers, Eumenes and Antigenes requested Peucestes to summon ten thousand bowmen from Persia.
Once again, Eumenes is the overall commander, Antigenes again supports him against Peucestes.......
21.1:
When the satraps and generals with Eumenes learned that the enemy was encamped in Media, they disagreed among themselves; for Eumenes, Antigenes, who commanded the Silver Shields, and all those who had made the march up from the sea, believed that they should go back to the coast...
Again, we have Antigenes and the original army supporting Eumenes against the Persian Satraps. Rather than see the army possibly divide, it is Eumenes alone who decides the army will go up-country, as the Satraps wish. He overrules the views of Antigenes and the other Macedonian commanders.

The Argyraspides and their commander had much to say about just what the Satrapal army did and who led it. And, unless Antigenes was not invited to the "Alexander tent", he certainly had a say in what went on - despite Eumenes calling the shots in the field.
.Yes, I agree that as a (the?) senior Macedonian Unit Commander, he was consulted along with others in council, but after discussion, as we have seen it was solely Eumenes who took the “command decisions” and gives the orders. The same process occurs in Military organisations today.

Xenophon wrote:You have quoted the Abstract/E pitome of the paper, I see. I too was unable to find the whole paper, though I was able to find some archaeological stuff about the island. It is quite small, just 2.5 km or so x 0.9 km – basically a large rock sticking out of the water, and there doesn’t seem to be any archaeology before Imperial Roman times, and though there are a number of shipwrecks, they are all Roman or later:
ANMED Issue:

The Cilician Coast Archaeological Underwater Surveys - 2005: Tisan (Aphrodisias) - Dana Adasi - Mavikent - Borsak Coastal Survey
“With its strategic layout and fresh water resources, Dana Adasi (Pithyussa Island) has a few Roman and early Byzantine churches, graves, sarcophagi, acquaducts, houses, harbour establishments and a Roman bath on the more wind-protected northern coast facing the South Anatolian coast.”

If these slipways date to Roman times, then they are irrelevant....

I prefer to take the archaeologists' view here - particularly that relating to work done up to ten years after your reference .
Only because it conveniently suits your purpose, despite its obvious flaws in the Abstract ! Nor do the works overlap; the ten year gap is not at all relevant. You are comparing apples and pears....
That Ephesus possesses many Roman ruins does not make it's archaeology irrelevant to earlier Greek history. Your skepticism has the air of Prandi dismissing a clear reference to Kleitarchos!
Ephesus has plenty of archaeological clues relating to its earlier Greek history. This island does not .

The point is that there are no traces of archaeology that date before Roman Imperial times, apparently. That is why I would wish to see the whole report, not to mention being interested in such matters. For example, if the dimensions of the slipways are given, it might be possible to determine what type of ships they accommodated.
But in the context of the current digression into ship-building, it doesn’t matter, for slips could not physically be used for construction anyway, because of the physical constraints I have referred to.

Xenophon wrote:Polyperchon too was with Craterus too, but by 322 BC is in command in Macedon [DiodXVIII.38.6]. Cleitus must have returned also, since he commands the Macedonian fleet of 240 vessels as you say in that year.[XVIII.15.9] and defeats the rebel Athenians at the Echinades islands, off the west coast of Greece in the Ionian sea.( not the Aegean)

I cannot see this as being correct at all. That Polyperchon traveled back with Krateros is clear; that Kleitos did is unlikely in the extreme and a stretch.
Why do you say this when we are specifically told he did? And if, as you would wish, he took over a fleet built by Craterus in Cilicia, then he must have been with Craterus.
The evidence we have is of Kleitos defeating an Athenian fleet, in June 322, at Amorges, east of Halicarnassos.
Only if one discounts the evidence of Diodorus, and relies instead on fragmentary clues in Plutarch...
It is not possible that Kleitos returned to Maceodonia with Krateros and sailed back east to defeat an Athenian naval force late in the archonship of Kephisodoros (323-322).
That is not what I am suggesting. There’s no reason he could not have returned with Polyperchon, or at the same time as he did, well before Craterus and his troops cross, and taken command of the Macedonian fleet in Macedonia. If there was time for the Athenian fleet to be formed [Diod XVIII.10.2] and get across the Aegean, then there was time for the Macedonians to do likewise, especially as they had a head start in having 110 triremes at sea [12.2] who had convoyed money to Antipater.
Indeed, there is absolutely no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be in these waters at this time. What is eminently possible is that he sailed from Asia Minor (Kilikia) to assure Krateros' passage of the Hellespont and met the Athenian fleet which he defeated.
I would agree that it seems unlikely that the fleets were in the Ionian sea, off the West coast of Greece, but that is what Diodorus says.....
That Cleitus started from Cilicia is all but impossible for all the reasons I’ve given previously.

Diod XVIII.15.8 is quite clear:
The affairs of the Greeks were thus in thriving condition, but since the Macedonians had command of the sea, the Athenians made ready other ships in addition to those which they already had, so that there were in all one hundred and seventy. Cleitus was in command of the Macedonian fleet, which numbered two hundred and forty. Engaging with the Athenian admiral Evetion he defeated him in two naval battles and destroyed a large number of the ships of the enemy near the islands that are called the Echinades.

But an ed itorial note suggests:

Diodorus has condensed his account of the naval campaign to the point of unintelligibility, although it was probably the decisive factor in the war. We cannot even be sure whether Diodorus intends to mention two sea battles or three. T. Walek (Revue de Philologie, 48 (1924), 23 ff.) reconstructs the campaign as follows. While part of the original Athenian fleet of 240 ships (chap. 10.2) blockaded the fleet of Antipater in the Malian Gulf, the rest held the Hellespont and for a time prevented Leonnatus from coming to the aid of Antipater. Although this fleet was increased to 170 ships, it was defeated in the spring of 322 by the larger fleet of Cleitus at Abydos (cp. Inscriptiones Graecae, editio minor, 2.298 and 493). Cleitus then crossed the Aegean and defeated the other Athenian fleet with great loss at the Lichades Islands in the Malian Gulf (see critical note), and at once removed to Amorgos for the final battle (Plutarch, Demetrius, 11.3; Marmor Parium for 323/2), which ended Athenian sea power forever. It is hard to see how any battle of this war could have taken place near the Echinades (off the west coast of Acarnania), but this name may conceal a reference to Echinus on the north shore of the Malian Gulf.”

For our purposes, we need not enter this controversy. Both fleets, wherever the battles were fought, will have originated from mainland Greece, for if a hypothetical Macedonian fleet originated in Cilicia, how would it get timely news of the doings of the Athenian fleet, to allow an interception? ( let alone the myriad other reasons Craterus could not have been building a fleet, nor manning one.)
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Post by agesilaos » Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:30 pm
Just to remind readers of the relevance of this part of the discussion; if 4,000 veterans remained in Asia in 322 it is 4,000 that might not have been available to Polyperchon in 318; although the strengths at both Megalopolis and Krannon suggest that they would not be required to allow Polyperchon to raise his 20,000.

Nevertheless, it has been claimed that several scholars disagree with Bosworth’s interpretation of Diod. XVIII 16 iv; we have seen that Billows and Badian were in fact disagreeing over his low population figures rather than the significance of ‘en parodoi’; Hammond has been dealt with and deemed a digression. This leaves Heckel, who does dispute the phrase ‘en paradoi’ in ‘The Marshals of Alexander’s Empire’, Routledge, London, 1992, p130


"Over the winter [323/2] he [Krateros] supplemented his forces; for he had decided to leave Antigenes and 3,000 Argyraspids in Kilikia for security, other troops were given to Kleitos who was preparing a fleet with which he woulod sail to the Hellespont. [n.354. Kleitos’ activities: Diod.18. 15. 8-9; Plut. Demetr. 11.4; Droysen ii3 39-40; Beloch iv2 1.74; cf Berve ii 209, no. 428; and see iii no.4 and Appendix III (with Map III). Antigenes was with Perdikkas in Egypt, where he murdered him (Arr. Succ. 1.35); the only way to explain his presence in Egypt is to assume that he joined Perdikkas in 321/0 in Kilikia (cf Heckel SO 57 {‘The Career of Antigenes’}[1982], 60-62). Schachermeyer 489, estimates that Krateros’ veterans included 6,000 heavy infantry and 3,000 hypaspists.] Krateros therefore recruited fresh troops, perhaps from the satrapies of Asia Minor. Diodoros’ description (18.16.4) is instructive: ….This has been taken to mean that Krateros’ infantrymen were divided into two units: 6,000 who had campaigned with Alexander since 334 (who had crossed the Hellespont with him at that time), and another 4,000 who had joined Alexander in the course of his campaigns.[n. 355. E.g. Brunt, Arrian ii 489]. But this is a curious distinction for the historian to make, and probably refers to Krateros’ own march. The 1,000 Persian archers and slingers, as well as the 1,500 horse, were part of the original force that left Opis. [n. 356. Diod. 18.16.4]."


There is no argumentation, so this is simply Heckel’s opinion and clearly tied to his belief that the whole corps of Argyraspids were discharged with Krateros.
An odd thing to suggest, Heckel states his reason for his view – which is much the same as Hammond’s, whom one cannot simply dismiss for no reason – and this statement has nothing to do with the Argyraspides and is not 'tied' to anything.
It is also clear that this stems from Antigenes going to the coast according to Justin XII 7ff
7Qua modestia obtinuerunt ut undecim milia militum ueteranorum exauctoraret ; 8sed et ex amicis dimissi senes Polypercon, Clitos, Gorgias, Polydamas, Amadas, Antigenes.
By this modest forbearance they produced such an effect upon him, that he released eleven thousand veterans more. Of his own friends, too, were sent away the old men, Polysperchon, Clitus, Gorgias, Polydamas, Amadas, and Antigenes.


And his later presence at the murder of Perdikkas along with the Argyraspids.(Arr Succ. xxxv ‘To Antigenes, commander of the Macedonian argyraspidae, who had first attacked Perdiccas, was given the whole of Susiana’) Heckel does not have these men join Perdikkas before the Kappadokian campaign, however, but only for the Egyptian one after the council of war in Kilikia.
So you are suggesting that Perdiccas picked up the men in Cilicia after the Cappadocian campaign ? Isn’t your position that there were no Macedonians in Cilicia to pick up?
His reasoning here is dubious; there is a perfectly simple way to explain Antigenes’ presence, Justin has erred and the Hypaspists and Antigenes were with Perdikkas and the king all along.
And why can’t we follow our sources, with Antigenes with Craterus in Cilicia and the Argyraspides in Babylon ? You give no reasons for your view.
I would also disagree with Heckel that the Argyraspides were in Cilicia.
At Opis the Hypaspists were not part of the mutiny, they arrested the ringleaders on Alexander’s orders


Arr VII 8 iii
αὐτὸς τῇ χειρὶ ἐπιδεικνύων τοῖς ὑπασπισταῖς οὕστινας χρὴ συλλαμβάνειν: καὶἐγένοντο οὗτοι ἐς τρισκαίδεκα.
He himself pointed out with his hand to the shield-bearing guards those whom they were to arrest, to the number of thirteen; and he ordered these to be led away to execution.
(Chinnock)


Seleukos, a hypaspist officer, perhaps even archihypaspist, is well attested to have been in Babylon when Alexander died; it would be reasonable to expect his command would be also. Antigenes might have been separated from his command as a lower ranking officer, but he is in command in Egypt and Perdikkas was unlikely to be giving out promotions in absentia (unless the recipient had a large army!). The simplest solution is that Antigenes remained with Alexander in 324.
See above. I don’t see any valid reason not to stick with the sources. On balance of probability, Antigenes did not command the Argyraspides/Hypaspists in Alexander’s lifetime.......( we've covered this subject elsewhere)
Of the others named by Justin Kleitos we next find in command of a fleet, so it seems unlikely that he was part of the discharged ‘senes’, Gorgias may be the taxiarch of that name from India (IV 16 I inter alia) and Polydamas the man who transmitted the order to execute Parmenion (Arrian III 26 iii, Curtius VII 2 11ff); Amadas is probably dittography from Poly-damas. Now, there are problems; would Polydamas actually have been an amicus/philos of Alexander? Kleandros and Sitalkes, who had commited the murder, had both been disposed of in the purges following Alexander’s return from India, how likely is it that the messenger boy remained in favour at court?
See above discussion with Paralus for how Cleitus may well have returned to Macedon with Polyperchon, also referred to with the ‘oldies’ – which doesn’t seem to have stopped any of them taking up subsequent appointments!
One does not have far to look to discover how Antigenes could have been included in a list of those leaving, Plut. Alx 70 iv


4 Now Antigenes, the One-eyed, had got himself enrolled as a debtor fraudulently and, on producing somebody who affirmed that he had made a loan to him at the bank, the money was paid over; then his fraud was discovered, and the king, in anger, drove him from his court and deprived him of his command. Antigenes, however, was a splendid soldier, and while he was still a young man and Philip was besieging Perinthus, though a bolt from a catapult smote him in the eye, he would not consent to have the bolt taken out nor give up fighting until he had repelled the enemy and shut them up within their walls. 6 Accordingly, he could not endure with any complacency the disgrace that now fell upon him, but was evidently going to make away with himself from grief and despondency. So the king, fearing this, put away his wrath and ordered him to keep the money.


Plutarch’s source already seems to have conflated Philip’s wound with Antigenes, since the payment of debts was just before the mutiny it would be simple for a careless compiler to include his name in the list of home-going big-wigs.
That is not logical, and doesn’t follow in the slightest.
All these assertions lack supporting evidence. They are purely suppositions, and boil down to Tautologies and Special Pleading, and are thus fallacious.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Ageselaos wrote:
I notice yet another whine about digressions; I suggest the whiner looks at the source of these, his own contentious statements; what are we to do accept the word of someone who knows precious little and bothers to research even less or are we to challenge it?

I presume that you have decided to take your intellectual honesty very, very much less seriously on this thread. Do you intend to explain why you have labelled a silver coin from Mallos as a gold coin from Armenia and specifically Orontes? FYI No independent coinage for the satrapy is attested before Tigranes II c 95 BC.

I call lying to the forum the height of rudeness, (in fact I call it something much ruder); I also failed to detect a hint of apology for the offense you clearly caused the moderator, my guess, based on previous bleating about others' posts (mainly mine ) is that the offence is cumulative and the last was only the final straw. Just grow a pair and apologise to her, you may feel yourself innocent but she is patently offended save the knee-jerk counter attacks for Paralus and myself to deal with, please. I am almost sure that after some reflection you will have arrived at this conclusion independently and may already have dealt with the matter by PM, in which case bravo.
I have dealt with the matter of the coins above, – and proved your accusations to be total falsehoods. It is not I who embark on digressions, as any reader can see..... I’m not going to dignify the rest of this offensive post with a response.

edited to correct quotation box.
Last edited by Xenophon on Wed Dec 16, 2015 10:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Post by agesilaos » Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:44 pm
The corps of the targeteers (peltasts) stands in a sense between these two, for the targe (pelte) is a kind of small, light shield, and their spears are much shorter than those of the hoplites.
Asklepiodotos 1 ii.
**** (=2.9K) The targeteers (peltasts) have equipment similar to the Macedonian, but lighter: [Laur. folio 147v] For they carry a small shield (target) and light-weight arms, and spears much shorter than the sarissa. This manner of arming (hoplisis) appears to hold a middle place between that of light-armed troops and that of those properly called heavy infantry, being heavier than that of the light-armed and lighter than that of the heavy infantry, and for this reason most authorities place it among the light-armed.

Aelian 2.8

Contrast and compare.
For the sake of completeness, Arrian is similar:
“The medium troops/peltasts are more lightly armed than the heavy infantry; their shield is lighter than than the ‘aspis’and their javelins than spears and pikes, but their equipment is heavier than that of the light infantry.”

All the manuals agree that for the purposes of defining troop types, traditional peltasts are lighter than heavy troops but heavier than light troops ( by virtue of having shields and helmets etc). They are frequently found on the flanks of the heavy troops, forming part of the close-order phalanx.
In reality, of course, these distinctions were not so clear cut, and the division into just three types is simplistic. Perhaps you should look into the subject further before posting..
Xenophon the Taktike expert wrote


Traditional‘Peltasts’ are NOT lights, who only skirmished. Peltasts were sufficiently heavily armed that they could, and did, take their place fighting in ‘close order’ in a phalanx.

Deliberate lie or careless lapse? The readers may decide for themselves.
Neither ! Perfectly true. As you will doubtless discover on researching the matter further.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Postby agesilaos » Sun Dec 13, 2015 5:58 pm
Xenophon wrote:
For instance, one could not validly put forward the view that Alexander’s soldiers could fly on the strength of references to “winged soldiers,” because it is a fact that human beings cannot fly.

Another perfectly good reason would be that no source claims he had ‘winged soldiers’, only that Chorienes, or some other Rock squatter, replied to his demand to surrender that he would need ‘winged soldiers’. Once again you seem less than familiar with the sources, maybe it is in some secondary modern source.
As I told Amyntoros, this was a ‘made up’ example loosely based on Arrian which obviously I am familiar with in detail. It was intended to amuse readers through being such an obviously ridiculous example.
However until you address this coin issue and your sudden divergence from the formerly sacrosanct Manuals, i feel disinclined to engaged with your further adventures in imagination and folly.
I have dealt with your false accusations regarding the coin illustration in detail above.
I have never regarded the manuals as ‘sacrosanct’. Like any source they are good in parts, not so good in others .

I am pleased to hear you are not going to engage further......it will help to end this thread before it staggers on interminably..... :D

I shall, as usual, ignore the name-calling and unwarranted false accusations.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
i feel disinclined to engaged with your further adventures in imagination and folly.
Well, that didn't last long did it ! For a moment I had some hopes that you meant what you said.
Xenophon wrote:
Dealing first with the English translation; the Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines establish (inter alia) as to “set up or bring about permanently; to create...”. In the context of a shipyard, that means to build or construct. Both the Penguin Theaurus and Roget’s Thesaurus allow “establish” and “construct” as synonyms, which fits the context here.
This is the wrong end of matters to start and can safely be ignored;


Why? Reverse the order and put my consideration of the Greek translation first, it makes no difference to the argument, and can't be 'safely ignored'.
..when looking a translation first recourse is to the original so one looks up ἀπέδειξε (apedeixe), easiest by finding the passage on Perseus and just clicking on the word which will take you to a short translation and the first person present indicative form ἀποδείκνυμι (apodeiknumi) and a handy link to the two lexika, LSJ and the Middle Liddell, its smaller version.

Now, Xenophon has used the shorter version and plumped for


II.to appoint, name, create, ἀπ. τινὰ βασιλέα id=Hdt., Xen.


Jumping on the possible English meaning of ‘create’ but the lexicon tells us how it is to be understood by its example ‘to be created king’; I do not think Mr Liddell is suggesting that the king was fashioned of red earth and then brought to life! In fact the lexicon gives synonyms in each entry so ‘create’ here means the same as ‘appoint’ or ‘name’. A look at the main Lexicon confirms this



1. appoint, proclaim, create, “ἀ. τινὰ στρατηγόν” X.An.1.1.2, al.: c. inf., “στρατηγὸν εῖναι” Hdt.5.25; ἀ. τούτους τὴν πόλιν νέμειν ib.29; “ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἐστὶ θεός” 2 Ep.Thess.2.4:—Pass., to be so created, Hdt.1.124,162; “μελεδωνοὶ ἀποδεδέχαται τῆς τροφῆς” 2.65; “ἀπεδέχθη εῖναι ἵππαρχος” 7.154; “αὐτοκράτωρ ἀποδέδεικται” POxy.1021.7 (i A. D.); ὕπατος ἀποδεδειγμένος, = Lat. consul designatus,OGI379.5 (Tiflis), etc.


Xenophon wrote:
As can be seen, it can mean “appoint” ( meaning II) – but also 'create' or 'make'. ‘Appoint’ does not really fit the context here, and to use Paralus’ pet phrase, it is “a bit of a stretch”. Oldfather and Geer, the Loeb translators, both use “establish” because of this. I’m afraid I shall stick to the accepted translation. “Establish/construct” is therefore clearly the likeliest meaning.
As can actually be seen the meaning Xenophon wants is not actually in the lexicon and is thus impossible; Paralus is quite right in my opinion as his interpretation is in the lexicon (always a good start) and contra X above does make perfect sense, Antigonos appointed the existing shipyards to fulfil his contracts.

Readers may make their own choice between an interpretation born of the lexical entry and one fashioned from poor method and no lexical support. It should not take long.
[/quote]
....Except Agesilaos has this backward. It is Paralus who wants to force a new out-of-context interpretation to suit his and your case, whilst I stick to the universally accepted translation for the last 70 years or so, unlike you, and it is not the 'the meaning Xenophon wants'.

Not to mention that there was no such thing as permanent warship construction yards to be ‘appointed’.
Nor should we consider Kilikia bereft of shipyards, she supplied 100 triereis to Xerxes’ armada in 480 (Herod VII 91 i)


Κίλικες δὲ ἑκατὸν παρείχοντο νέας.
The Kilikians supplied one hundred ships.
Right, this would be Herodotus “The Father of Lies”, would it ? Who posits Xerxes invasion force numbered over 5 million men, with an equally impossible 1207 Triremes plus smaller vessels,requiring crews of over 250,000 men plus over 36,000 marines. The majority of scholars I have read would revise this to rather less, and I haven’t seen an estimate over 600 maximum, and probably less ( e.g. Holland, Tom (2006). Persian Fire: The First World Empire and the Battle for the West. Abacus, ISBN 0-385-51311-9.; Green, Peter (1996); The Greco-Persian Wars. University of California Press.;Lazenby, JF (1993). The Defence of Greece 490–479 BC. Aris & Phillips Ltd.; (ISBN 0-85668-591-7);Burn, A.R., "Persia and the Greeks" in The Cambridge History of Iran, Volume 2: The Median and Achaemenid Periods, Ilya Gershevitch, ed. (1985). Cambridge University Press....and others too numerous to mention.

How many ships Cilicia contributed is a matter of guesswork, if any at all. Some guess at 50-60 but that would be a remarkably small number from a country roughly the size of Greece itself - which could raise hundreds, and clearly implies Cilicia had very little ship-building capacity despite many coastal towns.

Xenophon wrote:
…had to be paid. Only rough estimates can be made of all these costs, but if the Athenians constructed 20 to 30 ships every year, this may have amounted to between 30 to 50 talents (Starr 1989, 92 n.23). Where money was plentiful….

Rawlings not Rawlinson, one is forced to wonder why you cut this sentence, might it be that if Antigonos’ shipyards were producing 30 vessels a year, of a heavier rating than Athenian triereis (Diod XIX 62 viii)
I cut it because it is misleading in that its figures relate to the Persian Wars and after, which is not the period under consideration . The cost figure relates just to the cost of a bare hull, at the time of the Persian wars and later, and overall costs per year to the 'Trierarch' could amount to another Talent/6,000 drachmas, but costs increased over time.

Of these there were ninety with four orders of oarsmen, ten with five, three with nine, ten with ten, and thirty undecked boats
(The remaining ninety-seven or one hundred and twenty-seven if the undecked vessels were not counted, would be triereis.)
So they at least matched the output of Athens, no doubt she will be relegated to a minor naval power. It is to the initial cost of building dockyards and ships that Rawlings alludes, but the Levant had many existing shipyards, the wood is for the ships not their yards.
That is incorrect. There were NO permanent warship building facilities or yards, and I defy you to find a skerrick of proper evidence otherwise, and wherever ships were constructed, they were built within wooden frames, or ‘scaffolding’, so when ‘establishing’ a construction yard, timber was needed for this purpose also....


Are you having trouble finding the source of that bogus coin?
Asked and answered! ( see above)
The coin is not, and never was, 'bogus', and you should give me a chance to answer before you harp on about it..... :evil: :evil: :evil:

Edited to add map of Cilicia.
Attachments
Map of Cilicia showing cities.JPG
Map of Cilicia showing cities.JPG (44.83 KiB) Viewed 4666 times
Last edited by Xenophon on Thu Dec 17, 2015 2:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, now that Xenophon has deigned to reply to the charge of deliberately falsifying his evidence we may proceed to pass judgement.

I do not for one minute accept the accused’d reconstruction of the passed two days wherein his insulted integrity diligently searched for further proofs that he was not a dupe or a fraud. There is only one image provided that is labelled as Ervand II this is the one from Wikipedia, which is you will observe exactly the same picture as the accused posted, yet he claims to have searched on Google for ‘Orontid coins’;
Up came dozens of numismatic sites and I simply selected an image from one. I have no idea from where…

Are we to believe that the use of Wikipedia is so forgettable, it is certainly regrettable and had the accused just investigated one entry further down on the second page of his search (try it, Google ought to throw up the same sites in the same order) he would have found this (which I have only just discovered too) a full and detailed statement.

http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/culture/metal_p1.html
The extraordinary phenomenon of marking pieces of precious metal for use as money was a Greek invention of the seventh century before our era, first in the cities of Asia Minor and then on the islands and mainland of Greece itself. This greatly improved the development of international trade. In Armenia metal money only appeared much later. Until the fourth century B.C., commerce was carried out in the form of barter or by payment in gold and silver ingots according to weight. Only after this date was Armenian trade facilitated through the acceptance of coined money as a form of payment.
Archaeological excavations carried out in the Erebuni (Erevan) fortress have led to the discovery of Greek silver coins of the sixth-fifth centuries B.C. minted at Miletus (two specimens), as well as silver coins dating from the same period minted in Athens (several examples), others were discovered in the Sisian (Zangezur) region. The use of metal coins with weight and purity guaranteed by the state began to appear in Armenian circles just before and under Alexander the Great (died 323 B.C.) and his successors. Numerous coins bearing the effigies of Alexander and those who followed him have been discovered. The presence of this money proves that there were economic links between Armenia and the neighboring countries of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia. During this period, the Greek drachma, a silver coin of 4.36 grams, was the most commonly circulated money of international trade.
The Greek monetary unit was used as principle value in international exchanges. Armenian markets traded with gold coins called "Alexander the Macedonian," which weighed 8.60 grams and were stamped with the effigy of Athena and a Victory. In Armenia this coin was called a "sater," from the Greek word "stater." A gold stater could be exchanged for twenty silver drachmas or five tetradrachmas (tetra meaning four). Gold coins were seldom used in exchange, leaving silver coins as the medium for trade. After the dispersion of the immense empire created by Alexander of Macedonia, coupled with an increasing demand for money in local markets in the third century B.C., the first coins were minted by the Armenian rulers of Sophene (Dzopk'). International trading links were made through the established connections of the realm of Sophene located in the southwest of the Armenian plateau.
Sophenian coins bear the effigy of the king of Armenia on one side and on the other the sovereign's name and title in Greek characters and signs related to the cult: the goddess of victory, Athena, an eagle, a horse, etc. Only a few examples of these first Armenian coins have survived; they are in bronze and bear the portraits of the sovereigns Arsham, Abdissaris, and Xerxes (Shavarsh).
Further economic development created appropriate conditions for the minting of a greater number of Armenian coins by the Artashesian (Artaxiad) dynasty, which, during the second and first centuries B.C., was able to form a centralized state that spread over the Armenian plateau. The Artashesian kings ended foreign domination over the country and put its money, which was of the same weight and size as the Attic Greek unit, into circulation on the international market. On all these coins a standard effigy of the Artashesian sovereigns dressed with the Armenian tiara or crown was stamped on the front, and on the back there was the name and title of the ruler inscribed in Greek and accompanied by symbols related to the religious cult of Armenia. In chronological order, and according to the metal used, the following coins minted by the Armenian sovereigns are known to us:
Tigran I (123-96) - bronze coins
Tigran II (95-55) - silver and bronze coins
Artavazd II (56-34) - silver & bronze coins
Artashes II (34-20) - bronze coins
Tigran III (20-8) - silver and bronze coins
Tigran IV (8-5) - bronze coins
Artavazd III (5-2) - bronze coins
Tigran IV and Queen Erato (2-1) - bronze coins
Artavazd IV (4-6 A.D.) - silver & bronze coins
Tigran V (circa 6 A.D.) - bronze coins
Far from an independent satrapal coinage Alexander’s were used and later, Seleukid issues so
My point that independent coinage was produced ( as with rebellious and other Satraps), as a piece of evidence of the autonomy or semi-autonomy of Armenia at the time in question is still demonstrated and valid.
Remains demonstrably invalid, we will come to the sign off coin in due course, named to Orontas.

We must first dispose of the counter charge that it is the prosecution that has been shoddy in its research
The coin I used ( gold, not silver, as is obvious) certainly appears to be the same as mine – but in that case the description you posted is in error in calling it silver, which should have warned you of possible inaccuracies.

I refer the jury to the accused’s final image of the sales record for Triton 9: Lot 974, indubitably the very same coin I have posted and the same reverse he posted, a glance at the description will reveal ‘AR Stater’ – AR for the uninitiated stands for ‘argentum’ – silver. Oh dear, severe firearm damage to the lower extremities, it is also, correctly attributed to Mallos a town about 400 miles from Armenia. One really ought to check material that one is posting before accusing others of sloppy preparation.

But his picture does look goldish (much lighter than the genuine ancient gold coins pictured), it has been photo-shopped, having been posted on Wikipedia by an Armenian patriot; just check the source of the picture.
Now the reason for this confusing labelling is not difficult to discern. Virtually all coins out there are illegally sourced, which means they have no archaeological provenance. Without that, unless there is an inscription, dating the coin or even identifying its subject become pure guesswork – hence the many guesses in this instance.
This is nonsense if you have evidence for the illegal trade in ancient artefacts you need to go to the authorities rather than tar a well regulated trade with this slur in order to excuse your failure to check anything – contrariwise, if the attribution is so unclear why did you clearly label it Erwand II?
Does that mean that my attempt to illustrate Orontid coinage is inconclusive? Yes. That coin may, or may not, be of Orontes II.
No it is DEFINITELY NOT a coin of Orontes II, it was struck in Mallos over which he never held the slightest sway. :evil:

The accused seems determined to paint others as poor researchers too
but in fact he did exactly what I did, relied on a description of a coin from a single numismatic site,
Once I had finally tracked the coin down, I checked it with Wildwinds and several other sites, just to be sure; one should not assert that others have ones own low standards of practice, unevidenced.
Fortunately, I can illustrate a coin which is undoubtedly Orontid, because it is inscribed so ! ( see below attachment of nude hoplite coin)
Once again not referenced, but google images of ‘hoplite coin’ and it rapidly appears as a coin of Lampsakos (BM) or Klazomenai (see http://www.snible.org/coins/hn/ionia.html#Clazomenae ) both Ionian not Armenian, and mid fourth rather than late, so equally deceptive.

The accused has demonstrated not only a lack of remorse but has aggravated the original offence; one might pardon lying about relying on a picture from Wikipedia, such a woeful faux pas may call for drastic measures: but to then produce a slew of irrelevance and with yet another coin with absolutely no connection to the putatively independent satrapy must demand the full penalty of the law. :lol:

One might also consider that Ariarathes’ coins have Aramaic inscriptions, those of the Artaxiads continue with Greek, yet we know from the story of Orontes’ letter that the Armenians used Aramaic too.

What little evidence there is would suggest that Orontes II was deposed after or killed during the battle of Gaugamela and his relative Mithrines took over, the only evidence to the contrary is a speech in Appian where Mithridates claims that Alexander never conquered Armenia, yet in a speech in Curtius (at Opis I think) Alexander claims that he had! No fighting is attested in the satrapy when Neoptolemos took over (possibly only as strategos leaving Mithrines as satrap). In the intervening six or seven years (323 to 317 or 316) Mithrines may have died and been succeeded by another Orontes, it is a common enough name. Armenia remained within the empire but probably more as a vassal than a satrapy after the death of Perdikkas; the local dynasty seems to remain in charge and this would also allow Mithridates’ claim an element of truth.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Paralus
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2846
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Paralus »

Xenophon wrote:That’s not what the quotation says, which is “on the point of disbanding” and of course they were not recalled from their own hearths, for they never got anywhere near them – that is just exaggerated hyperbole, of course. Any unit disbandment would not take place until they arrived in Macedon, obviously.
What this passage absolutely and clearly implies is that the Argyraspides were dismissed from the royal army and deputed a particular job. A job they had completed after which they were on their way to "home and hearth". Eumenes, on the authority of the kings, countermanded this retirement.

It is interesting to note that you see recalled from their hearths as "exaggerated hyperpoble" whereas you take Justin's claim the Argyraspides refused service under any other general (demonstrably untrue) as absolute fact. Even though Justin is the single source to even mention such.
Xenophon wrote:We must agree to differ then.....I have previously explained why on balance of probability, the 4,000 veterans were left in Cilicia ( and see Agesilaos quote of Heckel Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:30 pm, where he explains in an aside, his reasoning. This quote raises another point. If Cleitus raised a fleet in Cilicia, where did his marines come from? At full complement [40 per ship] they would have amounted to 9,600 heavy infantry and missile troops.....not to mention crews of 48,000 including 40,800 skilled rowers - not something to be found in abundance in Cilicia at that time. )
Heckel supposes that the Argyraspides were among those sent home from Opis. He argues that Perdikkas picked them up on his way to Egypt. Given that the Argyraspides are not noted amongst the troops of Neoptolemos or Alketas, this does not support Perdikkas picking them up on the way to Kappadokia. Further, Heckel supposes that Antigenes' unit sent back with Krateros from India "must have comprised hypaspists" (Marshals, 323). But the hypaspists are mentioned frequently after the departure of Antigenes.
Xenophon wrote:Only because it conveniently suits your purpose, despite its obvious flaws in the Abstract ! Nor do the works overlap; the ten year gap is not at all relevant. You are comparing apples and pears....
And there is no self interest in your Prandi-like dismissal of the archaeology. Your hope that the findings are Roman is palpable.
Xenophon wrote:The point is that there are no traces of archaeology that date before Roman Imperial times, apparently.
"Apparently". Whence has departed the certainly? The hope continues.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:I cannot see this as being correct at all. That Polyperchon traveled back with Krateros is clear; that Kleitos did is unlikely in the extreme and a stretch.
Why do you say this when we are specifically told he did? And if, as you would wish, he took over a fleet built by Craterus in Cilicia, then he must have been with Craterus.
I'd be interested in the specific source attestation stating that Kleitos returned to Greece with Krateros. I can find none.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:It is not possible that Kleitos returned to Maceodonia with Krateros and sailed back east to defeat an Athenian naval force late in the archonship of Kephisodoros (323-322).
That is not what I am suggesting. There’s no reason he could not have returned with Polyperchon, or at the same time as he did, well before Craterus and his troops cross, and taken command of the Macedonian fleet in Macedonia.
This line of argument passes my comprehension. You are suggesting that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia "well before" Krateros and that Kleitos returned with him?! Perhaps the pair returned with Leonnatos? Just what source material states that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia before Krateros?
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote: The evidence we have is of Kleitos defeating an Athenian fleet, in June 322, at Amorges, west of Halicarnassos.
Only if one discounts the evidence of Diodorus, and relies instead on fragmentary clues in Plutarch...
It seems you have a very incomplete understanding of this as that statement and others indicate. Diodorus indicates two battles, the second at the 'Echinades'. The first occurred of the Amorges Islands to the west of Halikarnassos:
Parium Marble, 239 B9:
From the war around Lamia which the Athenians fought against Antipater, and the sea battle which the Macedonians fought against the Athenians around Amorgos, which the Macedonians won, 59 years, when Cephisodorus was archon at Athens.

Plut. Dem. 11.4:
When the Athenians were defeated in the sea-fight near Amorgos, he arrived at Athens before any account of the misfortune had been received...

Plut. Mor. 238A:
Cleitus, when he had scuttled three or four Greek triremes at Amorgos, caused himself to be proclaimed Poseidon and carried a trident...
The battle was obviously fought and is the first of Diodorus' two battles. It took place in the archonship of Kephisodoros. It did not take place in the Ionian Sea.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:Indeed, there is absolutely no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be in these waters at this time. What is eminently possible is that he sailed from Asia Minor (Kilikia) to assure Krateros' passage of the Hellespont and met the Athenian fleet which he defeated.

I would agree that it seems unlikely that the fleets were in the Ionian sea, off the West coast of Greece, but that is what Diodorus says.....
That Cleitus started from Cilicia is all but impossible for all the reasons I’ve given previously.
And this is what becomes of quoting one part of a paragraph. My point is that there was no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be off the Amorges late in the archonship of Kephisodoros. Nothing to do with the Ionian Sea.
Xenophon wrote:Diod XVIII.15.8 is quite clear [...] But an ed itorial note suggests:

Diodorus has condensed his account of the naval campaign to the point of unintelligibility, although it was probably the decisive factor in the war. We cannot even be sure whether Diodorus intends to mention two sea battles or three. T. Walek (Revue de Philologie, 48 (1924), 23 ff.) reconstructs the campaign as follows. While part of the original Athenian fleet of 240 ships (chap. 10.2) blockaded the fleet of Antipater in the Malian Gulf, the rest held the Hellespont and for a time prevented Leonnatus from coming to the aid of Antipater. Although this fleet was increased to 170 ships, it was defeated in the spring of 322 by the larger fleet of Cleitus at Abydos (cp. Inscriptiones Graecae, editio minor, 2.298 and 493). Cleitus then crossed the Aegean and defeated the other Athenian fleet with great loss at the Lichades Islands in the Malian Gulf (see critical note), and at once removed to Amorgos for the final battle (Plutarch, Demetrius, 11.3; Marmor Parium for 323/2), which ended Athenian sea power forever. It is hard to see how any battle of this war could have taken place near the Echinades (off the west coast of Acarnania), but this name may conceal a reference to Echinus on the north shore of the Malian Gulf.”
In fact as all modern commentators agree - your own certainty here excepted - Diodorus is anything but "quite clear". There is no evidence that Kleitos was ever at Abydos - either inscriptional or literary. The inscriptions referred to do not name Kleitos even though they refer to the sea battle off Abydos. If Kleitos was to fight a sea battle off Abydos it would be to secure the crossing of Macedonian troops. These would necessarily be those of Krateros unless you wish to suggest that Polyperchon and Kleitos returned to Maceodonia over the winter of 323/22 so as to have Kleitos sail to Abydos in spring of 322, with Antipatros' 110 ships, to aid Leonnatos. He would then sail south later in the archon year, with Krateros moving north to the Hellespont, to engage an Athenian fleet off the Amorges where he suddenly has 240 ships?
Last edited by Paralus on Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:07 am, 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 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

i feel disinclined to engaged with your further adventures in imagination and folly.

Well, that didn't last long did it ! For a moment I had some hopes that you meant what you said.
Better get your concise OED out again and look up what it means ‘to feel disinclined’, though it might be simpler to ask a ten year old.
Why? Reverse the order and put my consideration of the Greek translation first, it makes no difference to the argument, and can't be 'safely ignored'.
Half right; it makes no difference to the’argument because that has fallen from a bovine behind whichever way you look at it, for the reasons given; but like most of your ventures into language ‘it can be safely ignored’. Like your further bogus point; Paralus has suggested a finer translation you have asserted that the old one is better, backed up by…tradition…??? But then Herodotos is the Fathers of Lies, and presumably the contemporary Aischylos too he gives 1207 ships’ Persae,
Messenger
If numbers had been the only factor, be assured that the barbarians would have gained the victory with their fleet. For the whole number of the ships of Hellas amounted to ten times thirty, [340] and, in addition to these, there was a chosen squadron of ten. But Xerxes, this I know, had under his command a thousand, while those excelling in speed were twice a hundred, and seven more. This is the total of their respective numbers.
As for your edited quote
I cut it because it is misleading in that its figures relate to the Persian Wars and after, which is not the period under consideration
Athenian ship production was of course much higher during the glory days of its Empire and especially during the Themistoklean surge; I thought you knew about naval matters??? :shock: :shock:

I will not do your research for you, you find some evidence rather than simply assert; the forth going amply demonstrates your lack of command of sources, languages, argument and honesty.

The coin of Mallos remains as bogus as your lame excuse for posting it, it cannot be Orontes II and is bogus. The only source you have let slip is Wiki and you admitted yourself you only consulted ‘one numismatic source’ – not a way I would describe Wikipedia but then par for the course in the world of your source management.

How much more excrement would you have thrown out to obfuscate your folly had you not finally responded to the goad? This took two days; you really must stop thinking that people who do have a grip on the material, rather than a few Osprey books can be fooled by such a charade. It is not name calling when the name fits, that is ‘classification’, look that one up as well. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

Apologies to Amyntoros but this is not quite a discussion over the meaning of a word, rather a warning not to rely on the accuracy of translations. Much has been made of the ‘on the point of’ in the 1853 translation of Justin, sadly it is not to be found in the Latin and is merely an artefact of the Reverend Watson’s quaint and rather free translation.
8 ultroque eum conuiciis agitant, quod se post tot annos emeritorum stipendiorum redeuntes domum cum praemiis tot bellorum ab ipsa missione rursus in nouam militiam inmensaque bella reuocauerit, 9 et a laribus iam quodam modo suis et ab ipso limine patriae abductos inanibus promissis deceperit, JUSTIN XIV 3 viiiff
And further the assailed him with reproaches, that he after so many years of meritorious service they were returning home with the spoils of so many wars from their discharge he had called them back to the colours anew for immense wars, he had deceived them with empty promises and he had as good as snatched them from their Household Gods and the very border of the Fatherland. My version 2015
8 en outre, ils couvrent Eumène d'insultes parce qu'il les a rappelés du sein même de leur congé honorable pour une nouvelle campagne et des guerres démesurées, eux qui rentraient chez eux avec les récompenses de tant de guerres, après avoir accompli tant d'années de service, et qu'il les a trompés par de vaines promesses, M-P Arnauaud-Lindet 2003
and pursued him with reproaches “for having involved them, when they were returning home after so many years of completed service, and with the fruits of so many enterprises, and when on the point of being disbanded, in fresh efforts and vast struggles in the field; for having deluded them, when they were recalled, as it were, from their own hearths, and from the very threshold of their country, with vain promises; Rev. J S Watson 1853
Best practice is to go back to the original and check that the translation is accurate for the linguistic point that is being made, if that is beyond you then hedging things with ‘if the translation is accurate to the Greek/Latin/Akkadian’ would be advisable. Assuming that translators render things literally is folly; this is why , in peer reviewed papers commercial translations are frequently ‘modified’ and a generation ago scholars provided their own translations; a generation before that they assumed everyone reading knew Greek and Latin so did not supply a translation at all! :lol:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

Groan, so whilst agreeing that the Manuals put the peltasts among the light armed you think further research by other people will allow them to be counted among the heavies at Krannon, crass is not the word. Anyway, Diodoros XVIII-XX contains only one reference to ‘peltasts’ here XIX 19 ivff.
Since Antigonus regarded it as beneath his dignity to use persuasion on these people or to make them presents when he had so great an army following him, he selected the finest of the peltasts and divided the bowmen, the slingers, and the other light-armed troops into two bodies, one of which he gave to Nearchus, ordering him to go on ahead and occupy in advance the places that were narrow and difficult. After arranging the other group along the entire line of march, he himself advanced with the phalanx, putting Pithon in command of the rear guard. 5 Now Nearchus' detachment going on ahead occupied a few of the lookouts; but since they were too late in the case of most of them and those the most important, they lost many men and barely made their way through with the barbarians pressing hard upon them. 6 As for the troops led by Antigonus, whenever they came to these difficult passes, they fell into dangers in which no aid could reach them. For the natives, who were familiar with the region and had occupied the heights in advance, kept rolling great rocks in quick succession upon the marching troops; and at the same time, sending arrows thick and fast, they wounded men who were able neither to turn aside the missiles nor to avoid them because of the difficulties of the terrain. 7 Since the road was precipitous and nearly impassable, the elephants, the cavalry, and even the heavy armed soldiers found themselves forced at the same time to face death and to toil hard, without being able to help themselves.8 Caught in such toils, Antigonus regretted that he had not heeded Pithon when he advised him to purchase the right of passage with money; nevertheless, after losing many men and endangering the entire undertaking, he came with difficulty on the ninth day safe into the settled part of Media.
As can be seen they are brigaded with the light infantry and perform light infantry duties and are contrasted with the heavy infantry in verse 7. Seems you are the one who needs to do the research and then produce an argument based on the sources. The 40,000 heavy armed at Krannon were just that. :roll:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Agesilaos wrote:
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, now that Xenophon has deigned to reply to the charge of deliberately falsifying his evidence we may proceed to pass judgement.
I sincerely hope you never find yourself on a capital charge somewhere, endeavouring to defend yourself, for you will surely hang! Your case is as full of holes as a swiss cheese!
I do not for one minute accept the accused’d reconstruction of the passed two days wherein his insulted integrity diligently searched for further proofs that he was not a dupe or a fraud. There is only one image provided that is labelled as Ervand II this is the one from Wikipedia, which is you will observe exactly the same picture as the accused posted, yet he claims to have searched on Google for ‘Orontid coins’;
Wrong! Some people have real lives, and not as much time to deal with Forum matters as you seem to have. Clearly the Wikimedia came from somewhere – and I did not source that image from there. Furthermore I referenced – first – an Armenian site you have overlooked, with the same image.[ see above]. Where the image originated cannot be determined. It was uploaded to Wikimedia by an American of apparently Armenian descent, and he may have got it from the Armenian language site I referenced above – or somewhere else, such as this site where it also appears:

http://serials.flib.sci.am/- the Zhoghovrdipatmutyune
Xenophon wrote: Up came dozens of numismatic sites and I simply selected an image from one. I have no idea from where…
Are we to believe that the use of Wikipedia is so forgettable, it is certainly regrettable and had the accused just investigated one entry further down on the second page of his search (try it, Google ought to throw up the same sites in the same order) he would have found this (which I have only just discovered too) a full and detailed statement.
Had I found it on Wikimedia ( not Wikipaedia) I would have said so. [like other sources Wikipaedia and Wikimedia aren't all bad. It depends on their sources...] As I have just written, it is not just found on Wikimedia, contrary to what you suggest, but on a number of sites elsewhere too, as I have referenced.
http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/culture/metal_p1.html

“The extraordinary phenomenon of marking pieces of precious metal for use as money was a Greek invention of the seventh century before our era, first in the cities of Asia Minor and then on the islands and mainland of Greece itself. This greatly improved the development of international trade. In Armenia metal money only appeared much later. Until the fourth century B.C., commerce was carried out in the form of barter or by payment in gold and silver ingots according to weight. Only after this date was Armenian trade facilitated through the acceptance of coined money as a form of payment. .......etc.

Far from an independent satrapal coinage Alexander’s were used and later, Seleukid issues also
....You forgot to include the first paragraph of your source, which demonstrates, according to your source, that the Orontids DID independently issue coinage... [ It is true that thanks to trade, Alexandrian and Seleucid coins also circulated]

The Armenian plateau, rich in ores, was one of the first places to practice metallurgy and was ahead of neighboring regions in the use of copper and iron. Throughout history Armenians have been master metalworkers and jewelers. There is a near continuous tradition of metal objects from the first millennium B.C. to the present. Armenian metal craft can be divided conveniently, if arbitrarily, into three categories: 1) silver and bronze coins; 2) gold and silver works of art; and 3) bronze and other non-precious metal objects. Under the Orontid (Ervandian, fourth to second century B.C.) and Artaxiad (Artashesian, second to first century B.C.) Armenian dynasties, the minting of coins provided the art of engraving a natural outlet. During the first ten Christian centuries, however, Armenians did not strike coins. It is only under Cilician Armenian dynasties of the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries that the numismatic tradition of the Artaxiads is renewed. “ [ my emphasis]

A deliberate lie by omission, perchance? Or did you just turn a Nelsonian blind eye to it? To quote you: “then one can make a judgement on your incompetence or dishonesty.”
Hoist on your own petard I think. :lol: :lol:


My point that independent coinage was produced ( as with rebellious and other Satraps), as a piece of evidence of the autonomy or semi-autonomy of Armenia at the time in question is still demonstrated and valid.

Remains demonstrably invalid, we will come to the sign off coin in due course, named to Orontas.
Au contraire, according to your source also it is valid, andyou can find two dozen different coins minted by Orontes here:

http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?
search=Orontes&submit=search&album=search&title=on&newer_than=&caption=on&older_than=&keywords=on&type=AND&pid=on

Mostly from his time in exile as governor of Mysia.

We must first dispose of the counter charge that it is the prosecution that has been shoddy in its research.
Xenophon wrote:The coin I used ( gold, not silver, as is obvious) certainly appears to be the same as mine – but in that case the description you posted is in error in calling it silver, which should have warned you of possible inaccuracies.
I refer the jury to the accused’s final image of the sales record for Triton 9: Lot 974, indubitably the very same coin I have posted and the same reverse he posted, a glance at the description will reveal ‘AR Stater’ – AR for the uninitiated stands for ‘argentum’ – silver. Oh dear, severe firearm damage to the lower extremities, it is also, correctly attributed to Mallos a town about 400 miles from Armenia. One really ought to check material that one is posting before accusing others of sloppy preparation.
.......Really? How is it if you really researched other sources, you managed to miss the many sites listing Orontid coins, gold, silver and bronze; not to mention the many history sites that refer to same. The image I posted was simply one example, and was just for illustrative purposes.
.
Furthermore you seem somewhat geographically challenged (sloppy preparation? :shock: ); Mallus is about 240 miles from Armenian territory proper and bearing in mind the Orontids also ruled Sophene and Commagene as part of the Armenian satrapy ( until the Seleucids split these away), a mere 120 miles. Mallus, like various other Cilician cities, was a sanctuary with an oracle and independent under the Persians, and apparently Alexander too, who is supposed to have exempted the city from taxes when he passed through. What more natural than that they should choose to portray the last great independent Persian Satrap, if they wished ? For that matter they might well have wanted to curry favour with such a powerful neighbour, who probably had considerable influence there. For that matter, Orontes could have ordered the coins himself from the city’s mint.

However, as I said the identity of the Satrap on the coin must be uncertain, for the reasons I specified.
But his picture does look goldish (much lighter than the genuine ancient gold coins pictured), it has been photo-shopped, having been posted on Wikipedia by an Armenian patriot; just check the source of the picture.
An ingenious postulation, and perhaps possible, but one which cannot be proved, nor for that matter is there any evidence for such a thing, nor, given that the image appears on several other sites , is it possible to determine where it originated. The person who uploaded the image to Wikimedia is an American in Los Angeles, of Armenian descent. Who knows where he got it?
Moreover, why go to that trouble when there are plenty of other gold Orontid coins on the web anyway – simpler to just use one of those images.

Xenophon wrote:Now the reason for this confusing labelling is not difficult to discern. Virtually all coins out there are illegally sourced, which means they have no archaeological provenance. Without that, unless there is an inscription, dating the coin or even identifying its subject become pure guesswork – hence the many guesses in this instance.
This is nonsense if you have evidence for the illegal trade in ancient artefacts you need to go to the authorities rather than tar a well regulated trade with this slur in order to excuse your failure to check anything – contrariwise, if the attribution is so unclear why did you clearly label it Erwand II?
Nonsense? It is common knowledge in the Numismatic trade, and by collectors. You would be naive to think otherwise. If you travel to Greece or points east, you will be offered ancient coins for sale in almost evey bazaar. Most of these, of course, are fakes, some are genuine but not obtained legitimately and hence illegal. Even in the “well regulated” U.K. where there are strict ‘treasure trove’ laws, it is well known that more finds change hands illegally than ever go through the proper procedures.

It was not I who labelled it Orontes/Erewand II - it is labelled so on a number of sites, and as we have seen it now appears there are a number of ‘guesses’ as to attribution, thanks to the lack of archaeological provenence I referred to. Hence I wrote (above)
“Does that mean that my attempt to illustrate Orontid coinage is inconclusive? Yes. That coin may, or may not, be of Orontes II.”
No it is DEFINITELY NOT a coin of Orontes II, it was struck in Mallos over which he never held the slightest sway.
Another assertion totally unsupported by evidence - and see earlier in this post. There is no inherent reason why if portraying a Satrap on the city’s coins, they could not choose Orontes II, and lots of reasons as I said ante, why he might be chosen, or he might have chosen to use the city’s mint to mint coins for him. We cannot know why that particular person was chosen, nor identify him for certain, it now appears. But you most certainly cannot say it is definitely not a coin portraying Orontes II.
The accused seems determined to paint others as poor researchers too

but in fact he did exactly what I did, relied on a description of a coin from a single numismatic site,
Once I had finally tracked the coin down, I checked it with Wildwinds and several other sites, just to be sure; one should not assert that others have ones own low standards of practice, unevidenced.
So you admit you checked only that coin, and did not look for others, and in the end relied on that one description. Poor methodology. One does not assume a conclusion, then stop looking for evidence because one finds a single piece [the one possibly silver coin, even if you did check that coin elsewhere]that seems to ‘prove’ that conclusion. As I have said before, one should take a holistic approach and examine all the evidence. I did not do this either, but then I wasn’t trying to ‘prove’ anything, merely illustrate a known fact ( the Orontids minted their own coins independently)

Fortunately, I can illustrate a coin which is undoubtedly Orontid, because it is inscribed so ! ( see below attachment of nude hoplite coin)
Once again not referenced, but google images of ‘hoplite coin’ and it rapidly appears as a coin of Lampsakos (BM) or Klazomenai (seehttp://www.snible.org/coins/hn/ionia.html#Clazomenae ) both Ionian not Armenian, and mid fourth rather than late, so equally deceptive.
Not deceptive at all. Agesilaos should have researched farther, there are two dozen or more types of coins of Orontes, mostly minted in various places in Mysia ( far western Anatolia a long way from Armenia) by Orontes I, Satrap of Armenia, serving time as (temporary) governor there, and most likely the coins are connected to the Satraps rebellion, when Orontes commanded the rebel Satrapal forces [see coin site above].....there was a surprising outcome, but the interested reader can research that for themselves. It is covered in the sources I recommended earlier.
The accused has demonstrated not only a lack of remorse but has aggravated the original offence; one might pardon lying about relying on a picture from Wikipedia, such a woeful faux pas may call for drastic measures: but to then produce a slew of irrelevance and with yet another coin with absolutely no connection to the putatively independent satrapy must demand the full penalty of the law.
There was no lie about relying on a picture from Wikimedia (not Wikipaedia) for it appears on a number of sites, unbeknownst apparently, to Agesilaos, even after I point him to such! There are many historical sites which record the independence of Armenia at this time – here’s just one example:
1. “[Orontes II] Leader of the Armenians (together with Mithraustes) in the battle of Gaugamela (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5), hence presumably the satrap of Armenia under Darius III Codomannus (who held this same rank before his accession to the throne); from the fact that we find homonymous satraps of the same province some decades before and after him (see nos. 2 and 4, respectively), it may be inferred that this province was (at least partly) hereditary within one family, which can be traced back to the famous “Seven Persians,” and that this Orontes was a descendant of Hydarnes, too, and possibly a grandson of Orontes I. Since Alexander the Great did not subdue Armenia and never even approached this province, it must be the same Orontes, who is satrap of Armenia still in post-Alexandrian times, about 316 B.C.E. (Diodorus 19.23.3; Polyaenus 4.8.3), all the more so as this Orontes is a friend of the Macedonian general Peucestas (Diodorus, ibid.; see, in general, H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926, p. 295 no. 593).”
Source: Encyclopaedia Iranica

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/orontes
One might also consider that Ariarathes’ coins have Aramaic inscriptions, those of the Artaxiads continue with Greek, yet we know from the story of Orontes’ letter that the Armenians used Aramaic too.
Your point? Some coins even have bilingual inscriptions, some Greek, and some Aramaic......as do stone inscriptions. Both languages were in common use in the area.
What little evidence there is would suggest that Orontes II was deposed after or killed during the battle of Gaugamela and his relative Mithrines took over, the only evidence to the contrary is a speech in Appian where Mithridates claims that Alexander never conquered Armenia, yet in a speech in Curtius (at Opis I think) Alexander claims that he had!
We know that an “Orontes” ruled in Armenia in 317 BC from the forged letter [Diod XIX.23.3]. We know that Orontes II fought at Gaugemala, but there is no source evidence he was killed there whatsoever .They were therefore most likely one and the same [see quotation above] and he continued to rule despite Alexander’s attempt to supplant him with his son Mithranes. However, absolute certainty is not possible.

It does not matter though. An Orontid ruled Armenia as King and Satrap in 331 BC, and also in 317 BC, showing continuity of independent rule. ( whether Orontes II or III is neither here nor there)
No fighting is attested in the satrapy when Neoptolemos took over (possibly only as strategos leaving Mithrines as satrap). In the intervening six or seven years (323 to 317 or 316) Mithrines may have died and been succeeded by another Orontes, it is a common enough name.
Possible, but it must be said there is no evidence for Mithranes actually taking up rule in Armenia. Neoptolemus, and subsequently Eumenes failed utterly in Armenia and were clearly forced to leave. There may or not have been actual battles, but it is hardly surprising that Graeco-Macedonian sources maintain a discrete silence over the whole episode, and we are told virtually nothing of it.
Armenia remained within the empire but probably more as a vassal than a satrapy after the death of Perdikkas; the local dynasty seems to remain in charge and this would also allow Mithridates’[sic: Mithranes?] claim an element of truth.
the local dynasty seems to remain in charge.” The Orontids remained in charge ! Q.E.D. Why didn’t you just agree with me in the first place? Would have saved us both time and effort! :evil:

Do you have any evidence for ‘vassal’ status rather than independent ? Beyond Alexander’s boastful and obviously untrue claim at Opis. ( another topic for discussion?)

So, Mr Prosecutor, did you prove your accusations beyond reasonable doubt? Not even close! In fact you didn’t succeed in proving even one of your accusations. Consider yourself sacked.
To parody Rumpole's Judge Roger "The Mad Bull" Bullingham: "Prosecutor, you stand condemned out of your own mouth! "

And there we’ll leave you, hanging and swinging in the breeze........

P.S: For the usual fee, I’ll pull on your legs to speed your demise and ease your suffering. :twisted: :twisted:
Post Reply