I dare say they might well be indignant at any suggestion that they might be so old as to be retired. The vast majority of them were liable for service for many years yet before they reached retirement age, as their subsequent history demonstrates.An interesting POV, one wonders what all the soldiers who has been ‘discharged’ would think.Xenophon wrote: A thorough presentation, but amidst all the definitions I don’t see “retire”, which is certainly not the same as ‘dismiss’, ‘discharge’ etc. So Paralus’ usage is not what the sources say.
I presume you have the relevant references, I won't be trying to find them, they may just be a line from 'The Huffington Post', and we know where that sort of confusion leads; so, tell us where these arguments are to be found and which ones you are willing to discuss. A reply should only be a moment unless you are just throwing out names on the off chance. Hammond of course you need not bother with as you will not discuss his article.Nor do many scholars, such as Hammond, already referred to, Badian, Billows and others agree with Bosworth’s interpretation of the possibly ambiguous Greek.
....and I was trying to broaden the discussion ( albeit I did not make myself clear –mea culpa) by drawing attention to the fact that Bosworth’s views generally (on this subject of Macedonian numbers) as well as the translation, hence reference to p.64 as well as p.73, were not widely accepted, as Bosworth himself acknowledges on P.64 – which I alluded to earlier, and which you concurred with at the time, but apparently not now ?Xenophon wroteThe source for my statement is Bosworth himself [ p.64 “Legacy...” ] “My conclusions have been
sharply challenged, by Nicholas Hammond, Ernst Badian,and Richard Billows” [N. G, L. Hammond, JHS tog ( i g S g ) (sec also ORBS 25 (1984) 51-61);E. Badian, in Ventures into Greek Historv, ; R. A. Billows, Kings and Colonists,]
If you want to know more, you’ll have to look them up yourself and start a new thread if you wish to discuss Bosworth and his critics.
Remember we are talking about the Greek, ‘the possibly ambiguous Greek’ ie XVIII 16 iv
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] )So, this has nothing to do with the ‘possibly ambiguous Greek’ at all and it is his claims that Macedon was drained of men that these three ‘sharply challenged’. In fact you are citing as support three authors who would agree with Para and myself.
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.”
The general point, that Bosworth’s view and interpretation ( which you and Paralus espouse) regarding the number of veterans who crossed with Craterus is in all likelihood a minority one, is perfectly valid.