Macedonian Military Numbers

Discuss the wars of Alexander's successors

Moderator: pothos moderators

User avatar
Xenophon
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 847
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 2:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Xenophon »

Amyntoros wrote:
For the record I am making an observation as a member. Disagreements based on the translation of a single word or phrase keep happening time and time and time again in these current debates. As all parties involved seek to establish the "likeliest" meaning according to their own interpretation, then why not just leave it at that? Agree to disagree and stop with the back and forth wrong/right/incorrect/correct/guilty/innocent. I can't speak for other members (although perhaps their silence speaks for itself) but I'm certainly not "taking sides" as in each and every instance it is obvious that there are many possibilities and no one - and I mean no one - can lay claim to knowing the correct one.
You have often taken the view that all things are purely a matter of opinion, and whilst true in many cases, it is also true that others are a matter of fact, and constrain the higher flights of fancy. It is also true that some things are just plain impossible. 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.
This and other debates would be so much more understandable if each party posts once saying that they don't agree with said interpretation and then proffering their own and explaining how it leads to their own conclusions. And then leaving it at that. There is no verdict to be proclaimed and no one to proclaim it. As it stands this kind of "debate" would be better served by PM where the parties concerned can fight it out forever if they wish.
This all came about as a result of the observation that we aren’t told and don’t know what Craterus and his 10,000 veterans were doing in Cilicia, where they may have been a considerable time. This itself is based on the assumption that they went straight there, and for instance, were not diverted to put down some unmentioned rebellion, or for some other reason, en route. Some classical scholar, who obviously didn’t understand much about ancient navies, put forward the suggestion that Craterus was building Alexander’s proposed vast fleet, and this ‘canard’, which is quite impossible for many reasons has taken hold – for example Anson refers to it indirectly in the quote earlier. Agesilaos too evidently believes this, despite there being no evidence for such a thing, and the impossibility of it for a number of reasons – as anyone with knowledge of ancient navies readily understands.
In this instance, I had pointed out that the Cilician coast was ( and still is ! ) very rugged, and did not possess large harbour facilities, or a ship-building industry capable of constructing large ‘polyremes.’Paralus, in support of Agesilaos, interpreted a Greek word to mean Antigonus ‘appointed,’ existing ship-building facilities, including one in Cilicia to build him a fleet.
For my part I pointed out:
1. Yes, the word could have that meaning but not in this context.
2. This unique interpretation runs contrary to all the accepted translations.
3. Such a thing was impossible anyway, because there was no such thing as a permanent warship-building facility in the ancient world, so Antigonus couldn’t have ‘appointed’ existing warship building facilities..
You’ll note that the latter point is nothing to do with definitions, but relies on factual extrinsic evidence.
I could go on and explain how ancient navies worked, the size of crews and their cost, the cost of building fleets and their maintenance, the service life of ships, and just why warships were ‘laid up,’at the end of the campaigning/sailing season either in permanent purpose built ship-sheds ( epineion or neorion) or simply hauled out onto a beach temporarily over winter (naustathmon). No permanent warship-building facilities are known to have ever existed ( not even in maritime cities such as Athens or Carthage). But that is properly the subject of a different thread.

You might have noticed that both Paralus and I have indeed posted “... once saying that they don't agree with said interpretation and then proffering their own and explaining how it leads to their own.”
And this brings me back to something I said earlier when I posted that a summary would be nice - I was hoping for a summary with observations such as "based on my interpretation of (insert passage, word, ref, quote, etc.) as meaning thus, then I deduce these particular figures."
As soon as you posted your request, Page 3 Nov 29, I pointed out my first post was exactly that, and for convenience re—posted it with some additional explanatory notes on page 3 Dec 1. Agesilaos and Paralus have so far not seen fit to respond to your request – probably because there is no real evidence to support their POV that Polyperchon could have had as many as 20,000 Makedones at Athens. As I said, my original post on another thread was not meant to be turned into a debate on a thread of its own, because I believed it to be self-evident and uncontroversial.
(Because, for the record, I have no idea why building ships or not building ships affects the figures and I've no interest in going back through the repetitive arguments regarding translations of a single word in order to find out why.)
Obviously they don't - this is just a digression on a digression, typical of those that so frequently plague Pothos threads. See also my second paragraph above in this post for an explanation of how we got here.... :)
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 1:51 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by amyntoros »

Xenophon wrote:Amyntoros wrote:
For the record I am making an observation as a member. Disagreements based on the translation of a single word or phrase keep happening time and time and time again in these current debates. As all parties involved seek to establish the "likeliest" meaning according to their own interpretation, then why not just leave it at that? Agree to disagree and stop with the back and forth wrong/right/incorrect/correct/guilty/innocent. I can't speak for other members (although perhaps their silence speaks for itself) but I'm certainly not "taking sides" as in each and every instance it is obvious that there are many possibilities and no one - and I mean no one - can lay claim to knowing the correct one.
You have often taken the view that all things are purely a matter of opinion, and whilst true in many cases, it is also true that others are a matter of fact, and constrain the higher flights of fancy. It is also true that some things are just plain impossible. 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.
Do not insult my intelligence, Xenophon, nor the intelligence of our members. Did you write this nonsense about winged soldiers so that you can give the appearance of me being a fool who doesn't understand what she is saying? You know exactly what I was referring to - in fact, there it is above for all to see. Interpretation of words!!!! And if you'd like to go back and find the other times where I have taken the view that something is purely a matter of opinion I'm sure you will find my point just as reasonable. For the record, I'd love to know where, within these debates, something is a "matter of fact" because if said subject is under debate then it cannot be a matter of fact. Oh, of course ....
Xenophon wrote: ... which is quite impossible for many reasons
... despite there being no evidence for such a thing,
...and the impossibility of it for a number of reasons
... as anyone with knowledge of ancient navies readily understands (my note here - this is a slight here against any member who disagrees)
...Yes, the word could have that meaning but not in this context.
...This unique interpretation runs contrary to all the accepted translations.
... Such a thing was impossible anyway
...apparently this discussion regarding shipyards is NOT a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact in which you are right. And yet, it is, or was, a topic under debate.
Xenophon wrote:this is just a digression on a digression, typical of those that so frequently plague Pothos threads
Hmm, "plague"? Carefully chosen word, I'm sure. Well, here we go. I have previously said I don't want to see discussions about "how" something is debated, nor remarks directed at those who post. And here I am, doing that exact thing myself. I went from posting what I thought was a respectful and reasonable post as a member to responding today as a mod who is entirely frustrated. I think I'll take a little break from Pothos. Oh, I'll still check it daily, but I shall not get involved.

Enjoy.
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
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:Yes, that is precisely the point; that they would no longer serve anyone else in the same way they had served Alexander – i.e. as Royal Bodyguards.
Again, that is no more than a surmise. The passage is a rhetorical construct by Trogus/Justin and is used to frame a 'speech' by Eumenes to the Argyraspides. The entire point is to paint the Argyraspides as contumacious group to whom Eumenes must grovel as a suppliant. The much fuller Diodorus mentions nothing of this although he treats the subject in far greater detail and length.
Xenophon wrote:The actual unit that performed this duty was the ‘Agema’. Further evidence as I have previously mentioned, is that we no longer hear of a Foot ‘Agema’ of the Hypaspists/Silver Shields after the death of Alexander
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
Xenophon wrote: or any other Foot 'Agema' ( though cavalry ‘Agemas’ of Companion cavalry do continue ). The ‘Agema’/Royal Bodyguard disappears from History.
The foot agema clearly existed in the Antigonid army.
Xenophon wrote:‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’/the facts speak for themselves, and ‘absence of (positive) evidence is not evidence of absence’. Eumenes clearly wanted an infantry Bodyguard unit. The ‘Silver Shields’ evidently would not oblige him, and he raised his own ‘Hypaspists’.
The source evidence stating that Eumenes "clearly wanted a bodyguard unit" and that the Argyraspides refused him would be interesting.
Xenophon wrote: Further evidence lies in the fact that the ‘Silver Shields’ even accepted a downgrading of status, for the new ‘Hypaspists’ as a Guard unit stood on the right of the line, and took precedence over the ‘Silver Shields’, - who now served as an ‘ordinary’ line unit, albeit ‘senior’ line unit taking their position to the immediate left of the new ‘Hypaspists’. Military facts you seem to have overlooked.
Downgrading of status? The Argyraspides certainly insisted on their 'corporate identity' - to differentiate themselves from later hypaspists, and keep their (in)famous reputation, almost certainly. What they did not do was accept any downgrading. Diodorus and Plutarch are plain that these men were the most important in the satrapal army (they were the "spear point") and it is they who make decisions over command along with their general. Far more militarily important a fact.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:“we must, perforce, believe that the three major Phoinikian cities named possessed no shipyards before Antigonos constructed them. It beggars belief that a city such as Sidon had no such facilities - nor the others for that matter.”
That is an illogical ‘Straw Man’argument. No-one suggests that “Phoenician cities possessed no shipyards.
That is rather disingenuous. What was written was "the three major Phoinikian cities named possessed no shipyards" not that Phoenician cities possessed no shipyards. That is your truncated construct. While on shipyards:
Xenophon wrote:I didn’t ‘invent’ a rebellion in Cilicia, merely suggested it was a possible and likely reason Craterus and his army remained there so long, when they were keen to get home. Certainly more likely than Craterus supervising ship-building, which couldn’t occur along the rugged Cilician coastline, with its small coves so suitable for pirates to hide in. The nearest decent harbours were in Phoenicia, or far to the west.
The author of An Ancient Shipyard: Silifke Dana Island, presented at 19th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology in Turkey last month, is clearly unaware of your certainty in this matter:
During the underwater survey of the town of Silifke, Mersin-Turkey in the summer of 2015, a previously unknown ancient shipyard was found by Selcuk University Underwater Research Center. The site of this shipyard is on the coast of an island which is termed Dana Island (Pithyussa) in ancient region of Cilicia.

This shipyard contains about 100 slipways, available to construct at least 100 ships within a year. Some of the entrances of the slipways
are visible from the bottom of the sea. The main parts of these slipways are cut into the rock of the coastline and some of them contain a special unit to enable the construction/repair of the rams of warships. These warships termed “bireme” and “trireme” were the main naval warships of antiquity employed from about the 8th century B.C. into the 5th century A.D. One iron ram was also found in the course of this research at a depth of 35 m. on the west side of the island. These slipways were constructed side by side along approximately 1500 m. of the coastline and some had broken and fallen into the sea due to past seismic activity. Some slipways were constructed extending partly into the sea through the use of special architectural methods. Working on these slipways will enable a greater understanding of ship construction in antiquity and the engineering involved in ram production and of the process of the attachment of the ram to the warship.
It would seem these Kilikian pirates were alarmingly cashed up and well heeled when it came to furnishing themselves ships! One might also enquire of Kleitos. He is last heard of in the company of Krateros in Kilikia in 323. At the crisis of the Lamian war, late in the archonship of Kephisodoros, he sails into the Aegean with the"Macedonian Fleet" of 240 ships. Whence came these ships?
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 »

Numismatic evidence is indeed valuable you may recognise this
97-710974.jpg
97-710974.jpg (41.83 KiB) Viewed 5022 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 .. :roll: :roll: :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 »

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

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.
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 »

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. :roll:

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. :twisted:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Alexias
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Alexias »

Hmm, "plague"? Carefully chosen word, I'm sure. Well, here we go. I have previously said I don't want to see discussions about "how" something is debated, nor remarks directed at those who post. And here I am, doing that exact thing myself. I went from posting what I thought was a respectful and reasonable post as a member to responding today as a mod who is entirely frustrated. I think I'll take a little break from Pothos. Oh, I'll still check it daily, but I shall not get involved.

Enjoy.
I hope you don't mean that, Amyntoros. Sadly, I don't think you will stop the Sheldons being Sheldons. Best just to leave them to it as they seem to enjoy it!

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

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

I think that's 'Big Bang Theory'? I don't watch it but might if you reckon it's worth it; I do watch some comedy but not normally the American sort, BBC's 'Episodes' tends to confirm my prejudices in a very funny way.

But Alexias, why not just point out where you disagree with the arguments (if you can disinter them from the obfuscation), generally the more people involved the the quotient of reasonability increases; is that a bit Sheldon? :wink:
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Alexias
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Alexias »

agesilaos wrote:I think that's 'Big Bang Theory'? I don't watch it but might if you reckon it's worth it; I do watch some comedy but not normally the American sort, BBC's 'Episodes' tends to confirm my prejudices in a very funny way.

But Alexias, why not just point out where you disagree with the arguments (if you can disinter them from the obfuscation), generally the more people involved the the quotient of reasonability increases; is that a bit Sheldon? :wink:
It is the Big Bang. Perhaps an acquired taste but the earlier episodes are very well written, and Sheldon, irritating and literal-minded as he is, can be endearing.

I am afraid I do not have the time or energy to follow most of these lengthy threads in detail so I am not qualified to comment on the content, let alone disagree. Yes, I agree the more people involved in these discussions the better, but sadly that is not going to happen with these type of discussions.
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 »

An acquired taste indeed. It has probably outlived itself - as many do. The tensions have to resolve at some stage (Sheldon and Amy Farrah Fowler; Penny and Leonard for example) and then the show loses its mojo. Still, my 19 year old son loves it as does Salaminia, though the repeats eventually take the shine off. Something you're alluding to here perhaps??
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
Alexias
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 am

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by Alexias »

I don't want to be mean, but Sheldon's arguments tend to go round in tautological circles until he wins by a process of attrition :D
Penny: I give up, he's impossible
Sheldon: I can't be impossible, I exist. I believe what you meant to say is, "I give up, he's improbable."

Me: No, Sheldon, it's called elision. Most people understand that what Penny said was, 'he's impossible to deal with', not that you don't exist. It is not a literal statement.
They don't write them like that any more. :D

edit
PS I should make it clear that I am not making a personal attack on anyone. I just love The Big Bang Theory. And that I can quote it should prove that I am as big a nerd as anyone :D
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 2:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

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; 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.
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.

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.
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)
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.

Edited to add: Only Geer translated Book XIX (and XVIII and XX) Oldfather was general editor translating only vols 1-6 not 9 and 10 where the Hieronyman books are. I am sure that his is just another careless slip and not an attempt to multiply your authorities.

Are you having trouble finding the source of that bogus coin? :evil:
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 Paralus » Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:12 pm
Xenophon wrote:Yes, that is precisely the point; that they would no longer serve anyone else in the same way they had served Alexander – i.e. as Royal Bodyguards.

Again, that is no more than a surmise. The passage is a rhetorical construct by Trogus/Justin and is used to frame a 'speech' by Eumenes to the Argyraspides. The entire point is to paint the Argyraspides as contumacious group to whom Eumenes must grovel as a suppliant. The much fuller Diodorus mentions nothing of this although he treats the subject in far greater detail and length.
If we put together Justin’s evidence [XIV.2.7] with the fact that the ‘Agema’ disappears after Alexander’s death, and that Eumenes forms a new ‘Hypaspist’/Guard unit, the evidence is consistent, and there is no real reason to doubt what he says. That Diodorus doesn’t happen to mention it may be because he thought it self-evident, or a matter of minor interest or some other explanation.
Xenophon wrote:The actual unit that performed this duty was the ‘Agema’. Further evidence as I have previously mentioned, is that we no longer hear of a Foot ‘Agema’ of the Hypaspists/Silver Shields after the death of Alexander
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].

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.”
Xenophon wrote:or any other Foot 'Agema' ( though cavalry ‘Agemas’ of Companion cavalry do continue ). The ‘Agema’/Royal Bodyguard disappears from History.
The foot agema clearly existed in the Antigonid army.
Come off it ! That's pedantry taken to an extreme. :lol: We are talking about Alexander’s agema and the ‘Hypaspists/Silver Shields. The fact that the Agema as an institution was re-raised around 100 years later and appear in the army of Philip V is neither here nor there....

Xenophon wrote:‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’/the facts speak for themselves, and ‘absence of (positive) evidence is not evidence of absence’. Eumenes clearly wanted an infantry Bodyguard unit. The ‘Silver Shields’ evidently would not oblige him, and he raised his own ‘Hypaspists’.
The source evidence stating that Eumenes "clearly wanted a bodyguard unit" and that the Argyraspides refused him would be interesting.
Why do you think I raised ‘Res Ipsa Loquitur’, and pointed out the lack of positive source evidence? The Silver Shields were present in Eumenes army – Alexander’s Guards. The fact thatEumenes raised his own ‘Hypaspists’ tells us both that he wanted such a Guards unit, and that the Silver Shields would not fulfil this role for him.

Xenophon wrote:Further evidence lies in the fact that the ‘Silver Shields’ even accepted a downgrading of status, for the new ‘Hypaspists’ as a Guard unit stood on the right of the line, and took precedence over the ‘Silver Shields’, - who now served as an ‘ordinary’ line unit, albeit ‘senior’ line unit taking their position to the immediate left of the new ‘Hypaspists’. Military facts you seem to have overlooked.

Downgrading of status? The Argyraspides certainly insisted on their 'corporate identity' - to differentiate themselves from later hypaspists, and keep their (in)famous reputation, almost certainly. What they did not do was accept any downgrading. Diodorus and Plutarch are plain that these men were the most important in the satrapal army (they were the "spear point") and it is they who make decisions over command along with their general. Far more militarily important a fact.
....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 ]. They no longer had the status of ‘Royal Guards’ and yielded precedence to Eumenes new ‘Hypaspists.’They were still ‘crack’ troops, and the most experienced in the army though.

Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:“we must, perforce, believe that the three major Phoinikian cities named possessed no shipyards before Antigonos constructed them. It beggars belief that a city such as Sidon had no such facilities - nor the others for that matter.”


That is an illogical ‘Straw Man’argument. No-one suggests that “Phoenician cities possessed no shipyards.”

That is rather disingenuous. What was written was "the three major Phoinikian cities named possessed no shipyards" not that Phoenician cities possessed no shipyards. That is your truncated construct.
No, I’m afraid not....just a simple copying error !....which doesn't really matter to anything.
While on shipyards:

Xenophon wrote:I didn’t ‘invent’ a rebellion in Cilicia, merely suggested it was a possible and likely reason Craterus and his army remained there so long, when they were keen to get home. Certainly more likely than Craterus supervising ship-building, which couldn’t occur along the rugged Cilician coastline, with its small coves so suitable for pirates to hide in. The nearest decent harbours were in Phoenicia, or far to the west.
The author of An Ancient Shipyard: Silifke Dana Island, presented at 19th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology in Turkey last month, is clearly unaware of your certainty in this matter:

"During the underwater survey of the town of Silifke, Mersin-Turkey in the summer of 2015, a previously unknown ancient shipyard was found by Selcuk University Underwater Research Center. The site of this shipyard is on the coast of an island which is termed Dana Island (Pithyussa) in ancient region of Cilicia.

This shipyard contains about 100 slipways, available to construct at least 100 ships within a year. Some of the entrances of the slipways
are visible from the bottom of the sea. The main parts of these slipways are cut into the rock of the coastline and some of them contain a special unit to enable the construction/repair of the rams of warships. These warships termed “bireme” and “trireme” were the main naval warships of antiquity employed from about the 8th century B.C. into the 5th century A.D. One iron ram was also found in the course of this research at a depth of 35 m. on the west side of the island. These slipways were constructed side by side along approximately 1500 m. of the coastline and some had broken and fallen into the sea due to past seismic activity. Some slipways were constructed extending partly into the sea through the use of special architectural methods. Working on these slipways will enable a greater understanding of ship construction in antiquity and the engineering involved in ram production and of the process of the attachment of the ram to the warship."
It would seem these Kilikian pirates were alarmingly cashed up and well heeled when it came to furnishing themselves ships!
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....

That Abstract also just doesn’t seem quite right – the reference to the “iron ram” for instance. An iron ram survived after over 2,000 years in salt water? It would long since have completely rusted away! Further, I know of around 20 extant rams, and all are cast bronze. Worse still, although invented in China in the 5 C BC, techniques for casting iron did not reach Europe until Mediaeval times – not to mention that cast iron would be too brittle to work as a ram. Either ‘iron’ is a mistranslation or else the Abstract is wrong.

Also the ship slipways referred to cannot be for ship-building – they are clearly the type of slipway I referred to earlier in an epineion/port or neorion/dockyard i.e. storage slipways/sheds for drying out ships etc. Those for triremes were all no wider than about 6 metres, and since a trireme was about 5.5 m in beam over the outriggers ( 4m or so in the hull) there was simply no room on a slipway/shed to build a vessel. ( see attached reconstruction – a picture being worth a thousand words, apologies for the quality). Ships were normally built in the open on beaches, after ‘establishing’ a (temporary) shipyard ( Mediterranean wooden fishing vessels and caiques /coastal trading vessels are built this way to this day) with its thousands of workers and artisans - many more than Antigonus’ 8,000 wood workers - for ropemakers, sailmakers, bronze casters and a myriad of other trades were needed.
The 100 slipways (if correct) is also a surprisingly large number for a small island that was basically a transit harbour – for example Carthage had a maximum number of 220 slipways, Syracuse 310 in two harbours and Athens reached a maximum of 372 circa 330 BC in three harbours.

Until we can get to see the full report, one must be cautious with this evidence, of which I'm rather skeptical at present.....
One might also enquire of Kleitos. He is last heard of in the company of Krateros in Kilikia in 323.
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)
At the crisis of the Lamian war, late in the archonship of Kephisodoros, he sails into the Aegean with the"Macedonian Fleet" of 240 ships. Whence came these ships?
Obviously from Macedon, though perhaps some were Greek allies. There simply hadn’t been time for Craterus to arrive in Cilicia, ‘establish’ a construction yard and build hundreds of ships......
Attachments
Dana Island Silifke Turkey 2.7km x 0.9 km.jpg
Dana Island Silifke Turkey 2.7km x 0.9 km.jpg (14.63 KiB) Viewed 4963 times
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (23.56 KiB) Viewed 4963 times
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:
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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 . 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!
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. The evidence we have is of Kleitos defeating an Athenian fleet, in June 322, at Amorges, west of Halicarnassos. 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). 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.
Last edited by Paralus on Wed Dec 16, 2015 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

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

Re: Macedonian Military Numbers

Post by agesilaos »

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. 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
Post Reply