' The lameness of king Philip II .'

[agesilaos]

1. The Calippic reform as evidence that the Macedonian calendar was reformed in the light of Calippus work shortly after the fall of Babylon – not dealt with at all

Dealt with at great length but whilst I have demonstrated the magnitude and timescale of Kallippos’ ‘tweak’ you have produced no sign of a major calendric reform in 330, even Aristotle who allegedly worked on it mentions nothing.

A full explanation can be found here
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES

2. Pythodelos archonship being either 12 years 8 months, or 13 years, depending on method of counting – not addressed

There was never a way of counting the way you want and the proof is in the same sentence of Arrian quoting Aristoboulos viz

According to the statement of Aristobulus, he lived thirty-two years, and had reached the eighth month of his thirty-third year. He had reigned twelve years and these eight months.

Which means that there were an extra eight months after both 12 and 32 years, and five and twelve intercalations, which only works if the intercalated years are treated as normal, ie no allowance is made for the embolimic months.

3. Manipulation of time by ancient officials/leaders as an example of why Alexander’s use of same was ‘normal’ – not addressed

This is another red-herring , we hear of no manipulation by Philip and that of Alexander, if it is accepted, must have been corrected by the end of the year. We can say this because we have the Babylonian date and the Attic date for Gaugamelat. The Astronomical Diary, BM36761, gives the date as 24th Month VI, Ululu, and Plutarch Alx, 31 6ff, makes it c.26 Boedromion, we do not kbow the date in the Macedonian calendar beyond its being near the end of the month of Hyperberetaios due to Arrian’s use of the retarded calendar which equated Hyperbertaios with Pyanepsion rather than Boedromion, Arr. III 14/5 ‘ Such was the result of this battle, which was fought in the archonship of Aristophanes at Athens, in the month Pyanepsion;

[15] and thus Aristander’s prediction was accomplished, that Alexander would both fight a battle and gain a victory in the same month in which the moon was seen to be eclipsed’. All three calendars must have been broadly synchronous, so there had been no large scale interference.

If you wish to suggest it give some evidence rather than the general fact that occasionally dates were retarded. There is no reason, besides desperation to suggest any thing like that here.

4. Welles postulation that ‘Daisios’/May - June could have been the month in question – now acknowledged

I do wish you would stop misrepresenting what is said

We can say that the Tenth prytanny of 336 would have begun 14th May and run until 17th June, which would be 6th Daisios to 11th Panemos, so if one disregards Aristoboulos and, probably, Kleitarchos and the archon date, it would be possible to place the assassination in Daisios. It is a pity that we are not told when Demosthenes’ daughter died. That he received advance news does not help with the month of the event.

Pythodelos did not enter office until June 18th 336 so May is out and The part of June which is possible is only so by rejecting Aristoboulos and Kleitarchos in favour od unevidenced modern rationalisations.


5. No evidence for use of Persian/Babylonian calendar in Macedon – not addressed, and no evidence offered.

See above, as well as the synchronous months of Alexander’s death. Present any evidence that it was not.


6. The year in question not being the literal archonship year, on Agesilaos’ own assertions – not addressed

The Oxyrhynkos Chronographer definitely means precisely the archonship of Pythodelos as does the Marmor Parion, Arrian almost certainly does, doubt over Diodoros is excessively cautious, but if the supporting evidence offends thee…

7.The presence of the army at the time, as evidenced in the sources – not addressed saved for flat assertion this means Hypaspists and residents who were citizens, for which no evidence is offered, and which is plainly nonsense on the evidence of Justin and Diodorus!

This has now been addressed and you are the one found wanting in evidence. Bad translations and inferences are not evidence.

The only confusion is in your own mind, you see a molehill in the distant future and make a mountain.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote:

How thick are you? Try working things out

And the abuse and name-calling continues thick and fast - 'ad hominem' personal attacks are in total breach of forum rules, and those of civilised debate. Can you not make even one post without resorting to such derogatory language?

Still, I doubt anyone else is reading all this complex chronological trivia......

Let's look at your post quoting the archon list from Merritt, and "work things out" which you apparently can't. A so-called 'Metonic cycle', more properly Babylonian cycle, works on a 19 year basis, and has regular 'inter calary' months - seven - which occur in years 3,6,8,11,14,17, and 19

Now, Merritt annotates 'O' for ordinary archon year and 'I' for intercalary year - and straightaway we can see that that the intercalary years of 'cycle 6' DON'T correspond to the Babylonian cycle ( being years 2,5,8,10,13,16 and 18). Moreover, the cycle is supposed to be regular, and again we straightaway see that the next cycle does NOT correspond, with the eighth one( or first of the next, 7th cycle) being 'intercalary'. In fact the 7 th cycle runs 1,5,8,10,12,16, and 18, so corresponds to neither the Babylonian cycle, nor the previous Athenian one. Nor does the 8th 'cycle' (2,5,8,10,,13,16,18)......and so on. Hence no two cycles are the same and the 'intercalary' years have been added on an irregular, random basis - an 'ad hoc' system.

Which is just as Merritt says, as I quoted above: "“This was done because of a conviction which Meritt held in 1964 that the dates were specifically Metonic dates. He and Traill have come to believe that a "regular," untampered, festival calendar was often accurate enough, astronomically, to be in effect the same as the Metonic. [ i.e. just as accurate for practical purposes] But the known divergences of dates from the Metonic norm show that the festival dates were not ipso facto Metonic dates.”[p.161/162]

Plain enough for you ? Not in fact Metonic dates .

As to the Old Persian calendar eventually being merged with the Babylonian one and if so, when, that is utterly immaterial - and consequently I don't care, as I've said!
The point is there is no evidence either was used in Macedon, and your postulation immediately falls down right there.

I am not bothering with the rest of your posts, having found another blatant lie, since when are you qualified to alter the translation of the Rev Shelby Watson; but you can have the post people;

How many times is that you accuse me of lying? Dozens, hundreds? And you have never yet been right, in all the years of accusations !! Yet Just like Talleyrand's Bourbons, you learn nothing!

Why would I use a 160 year old translation, when there are more modern and better ones available? The translation I used is that of John Yardley, from "Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: Books 11-12 ..., Volume 1 By Marcus Junianus Justinus, John Yardley, with commentary by Waldemar Heckel. Yardley's translation is considered "fluent and accurate" - review by P.J.Rhodes, Professor emeritus of ancient history at Durham university; or "clear and accurate rendition" in the Bryn Mawr review by S Burstein, California State University.

Incidently, as Heckel agrees, the address is clearly to "the Army of Philip/exercitu Philippi" and "the whole host" is a perfectly acceptable translation of 'vulgus',which means 'inter alia' ; A mass, crowd, throng, multitude etc and can be used in a military context.

Oh dear, you seem to have 'ovum' all over your 'frons' yet again !

oh the Howler, Strabo is talking about the voyage TO Patala, Niarchos dates the voyage FROM Patala, simples.

"Simples", but alas that unsupported postulation does not appear to fit the facts. On the somewhat truncated evidence we have, neither account makes mention of two voyages, or even a single voyage divided into two parts. Strabo is able to 'compare and contrast' the accounts of Aristoboulos and Nearchos. He mentions the fact that Aristoboulos refers to a remarkable event, namely that during the ten months downriver, no rain fell, despite the fact that this stage of the voyage encompassed a monsoon season, and contrasts this with Nearchos' parallel account which does not mention it, merely providing the general information that the monsoon season falls in summer, and the winter is dry. Forgive the lengthy quote, which demonstrates this and much else.

Strabo XV.1 :
Aristobulus, however, says, that rain and snow fall only on the mountains and the country immediately below them, and that the plains experience neither one nor the other, but are overflowed only by the rise of the waters of the rivers; that the mountains are covered with snow in the winter; that the rains set in at the commencement of spring, and continue to increase; that at the time of the blowing of the Etesian winds they pour down impetuously, without intermission, night and day till the rising of Arcturus, and that the rivers, filled by the melting of the snow and by the rains, irrigate the flat grounds.

These things, he says, were observed by himself and by others on their journey into India from the Paropamisadæ. This was after the setting of the Pleiades, and during their stay in the mountainous country in the territory of the Hypasii, and in that of Assacanus during the winter. At the beginning of spring they descended into the plains to a large city called Taxila, thence they proceeded to the Hydaspes and the country of Porus. During the winter they saw no rain, but only snow. The first rain which fell was at Taxila. After their descent to the Hydaspes and the conquest of Porus, their progress was eastwards to the Hypanis, and thence again to the Hydaspes. At this time it rained continually, and particularly during the blowing of the Etesian winds, but at the rising of Arcturus the rains ceased. They remained at the Hydaspes while the ships were constructing, and began their voyage not many days before the setting of the Pleiades, and were occupied during the whole autumn, winter, and the ensuing spring and summer, in sailing down the river, and arrived at Patalene about the rising of the Dog-Star; during the passage down the river, which lasted ten months, they did not experience rain at any place, not even when the Etesian winds were at their height, when the rivers were full and the plains overflowed; the sea could not be navigated on account of the blowing of contrary winds, but no land breezes succeeded.

Nearchus gives the same account, but does not agree with Aristobulus respecting the rains in summer, but says that the plains are watered by rain in the summer, and that they are without rain in winter. Both writers, however, speak of the rise of the rivers. Nearchus says, that the men encamped upon the Acesines43 were obliged to change their situation for another more elevated, and that this was at the time of the rise of the river, and of the summer solstice.

Aristobulus gives even the measure of the height to which the river rises, namely, forty cubits, of which twenty would fill the channel beyond its previous depth up to the margin, and the other twenty are the measure of the water when it overflows the plains.

They agree also in saying that the cities placed upon mounds become islands, as in Egypt and Ethiopia, and that the inundation ceases after the rising of Arcturus, when the waters recede. They add, that the ground when half dried is sowed, after having been prepared by the commonest labourer, yet the plant comes to perfection, and the produce is good. The rice, according to Aristobulus, stands in water in an enclosure. It is sowed in beds. The plant is four cubits in height, with many ears, and yields a large produce. The harvest is about the time of the setting of the Pleiades, and the grain is beaten out like barley. It grows in Bactriana, Babylonia, Susis, and in the Lower Syria. Megillus says that it is sowed before the rains, but does not require irrigation or transplantation, being supplied with water from tanks.........

Now clearly both writers gave detailed accounts of this part of the trip. Arrian's account of Nearchus' book is the merest skeleton of his work, and Arrian has omitted all reference to Nearchus' account of the ten month journey down-river ( along with the vast majority of his work!). By chopping out this section of Nearchus, Arrian gives the false impression that the voyage began at Patalene, in July 325, when in actuality it began ten months earlier, far upriver....

Even if this were not the case (which it obviously is), we might be baffled by having two starting dates for the trip, ( because of the missing section that Arrian left out, along with much else) but by referring to extrinsic evidence that Alexander's reign did NOT begin in October, it becomes apparent that the voyage began as Aristoboulos said it did ( and doubtless Nearchos too), around September 326.

P.S.: This post was composed prior to Agesilaos' last two posts.

[Xenophon]

Apology accepted, though one can but wish the rash accusation had not been made in the first place, for it left a sour feeling. The apology goes a good way to mitigating matters.

Agesilaos wrote:

Unqualified it is just a crowd, one can only suppose Yardley was thinking of ‘host’ in a general sense rather than the more archaic sense of ‘army’, not a good translation.

As I have referred to earlier, it is the 'Army of Philip/exercitu Philippi' that is being addressed, hence 'host' is entirely appropriate. as to the quality of translation you appear to be in a minority of one yet again....

The follow-up demonstrates Justin’s accuracy,

"He granted the Macedonians relief from all burdens, except that of service in war;"

Which means when Arrian says I 16 v

"To their parents and children he granted exemption from imposts on agricultural produce, and he relieved them from all personal services and taxes upon property."
γονεῦσι δὲ αὐτῶν καὶ παισὶ τῶν τε κατὰτὴν χώραν ἀτέλειαν ἔδωκε καὶ ὅσαι ἄλλαι ἢ τῷ σώματι λειτουργίαι ἢ κατὰ τὰς κτήσεις ἑκάστων εἰσφοραί,

Alexander is granting what has already been granted.

I'm afraid that you have once again misread or misunderstood the source material. In Justin it is the Makedones/citizen-soldiers themselves who are granted the privilege. In Arrian, it is the parents and children only of the dead of the Granicus to whom the privilege is extended.

"[Arrian I.16] ...Of the Macedonians, about twenty-five of the Companions were killed at the first onset ; bronze statues of whom were erected at Dium, executed by Lysippus, at Alexander's order. The same sculptor also executed a statue of Alexander himself, being chosen by him for the work in preference to all other artists. Of the other cavalry over sixty were slain, and of the infantry, about thirty. These were buried by Alexander the next day, together with their arms and other decorations. To their parents and children he granted exemption from imposts on agricultural produce, and he relieved them from all personal services and' taxes upon property."

Given the small number of casualties, the gesture did not cost Alexander much !!
Contra what you mistakenly imply, the statements of Justin and Arrian here are entirely consistent.

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos wrote 2 Jan

I have not said that Macedon used the Babylonian calendar, quite clearly the months have different names, but I do think they had adopted the superior form of intercalation introduced by Dareios; the evidence is late (the synchronism at Alexander’s death) and circumstantial since we have no fully dated documents before Alexander, so the opposite case is equally ‘unevidenced’.

So you now agree there is no evidence regarding the Macedonian calendar before Alexander? The evidence thereafter, such as we have, suggests that the Macedonian calendar MAY have been merged with the Babylonian calendar by 323 BC, and if not then it certainly appears to have been later. If so, then that will likely have been based on the transmission of Babylonian Astronomical data and its ‘Metonic’ calendar to Macedon and Athens, which has been shown to have occurred by 330 BC.

It is a matter of balancing the probabilities. Macedonia was under Persian influence if not rule (Dareios names them as part of his empire at Behistun) right about the time that the calendric reforms were being put into practice (these are the Metonic cycle not the Kallippic) contrariwise we have a reform of Alexander that is not mentioned by any Alexander historian, is clearly instituted at Athens (the cycle begins at the start of the Athenian year not the Macedonian) and is only suggested by a very late source, Simplicius.

Indeed, Alexander I of Macedon acknowledged Darius as ‘Great King’[Herodotus V.17], but Macedon was not conquered or subjugated. We have discussed this ‘Persian influence’ before, and I will quote here what I wrote on the ‘Taktike Theorioi’ thread p.14 Sept 14:

“Indeed the evidence is that, like Sherlock Holmes dog that did not bark in the night, Herodotus does NOT say that Macedon became subject to Persia at all, but says Alexander I bribed the 'search party' after the murder.[Herod V.17 ff]. Later Herodotus records that in 491 BC, while in Macedonia, Darius' general Mardonius "added the Macedonians to the list of Darius' subjects." which can only mean they were a new conquest, not the crushing of a revolt by existing vassals. Mardonius was attacked in Macedon and forced to retire to Asia (mostly due to natural disaster to his fleet)[H.6.42 ff]. Macedon became subject to Persia again briefly in 480-479 BC when it was over-run by Xerxes army.”

So Macedon was very briefly subjugated by Darius in 491, and then they withdrew, and again briefly by Xerxes in 480-479 before again withdrawing. Agesilaos is a trifle forgetful, for the Behistun inscription, completed c. 519 BC, would have to predict the future to claim Macedon (!), and indeed Darius only claims the “Yauna”[Ionian Greeks], making no mention of Macedon ( otherwise referred to as ‘Yauna Takabara’) until his tomb inscription at Naqsh-e-Rustam after his death in 486 BC, when he does boast sovereignty.

Against these two very brief periods of ‘Persian influence’ we have overwhelming‘Greek influence’ over centuries – language, culture, ethnicity [of the upper classes at least] etc. The ‘balance of probability’therefore comes down heavily in favour of Greece, and it is very likely that like the rest of Greece, Macedon used a luni-solar calendar, with inter-calary months added on an ‘ad hoc’ basis as needed.

When declaring someone’s logic to be flawed it would be customary to point out where it breaks down; you simply assert that ‘It is inconceivable that Philip was not gathering his invasion force, intending to invade the same year’; all this demonstrates is that you cannot conceive of it, Philip II was more imaginative and also cautious.
We are not told much about his intentions but we have some facts, the most obvious one is that the advance force was sent in advance. One has to ask; why? Nothing would have prevented Philip holding Kleopatra’s wedding before the campaign started and having the army fully assembled and then had a full campaigning season.
We also know that the area which went over to the Macedonians stretched from Ephesos (Arr. I.17.ixff) to Kyzikos (Diod XVII.7.viii). We are told that at Ephesos Alexander re-instated those who had been exiled for supporting him by an oligarchy imposed after they had admitted Memnon to the city. To me this suggests that Philip was sending the advance party to both discover the extent of and encourage support among the Asiatic Greeks. That the size of the force was adequate rather than puny is demonstrable, as previously stated by the fact that they were not defeated and expelled, even after the delay necessitated by Philip’s death .

Oh dear! I fear more ‘old timers disease’. The Advance force didn't come anywhere near to controlling any sort of area.The Macedonians under Alexander didn’t approach Ephesus until after the battle of the Granicus! As for Cyzicus, near the Hellespont, Diodorus does not mention Macedonians present at all, though evidently they were on the Macedonian side as allies. Polyaenus[ V.44.4] confirms Memnon, with 4-5,000 mercenaries ( and perhaps a similar number of local troops) nearly captured it by a coup-de-main, getting his mercenaries to wear Macedonian ‘kausia’but the Cyzicans spotted the ruse and slammed the gates in Memnon’s face just in time.....
The Macedonians did at one point reach Magnesia, but were defeated by Memnon . By the time Alexander was dealing with Thebes, many, if not all of the advance force ( now under Calas - Attalus had been executed and Parmenion seems to have returned to Macedon) were bottled up on the promontory of Rhoeteium at the mouth of the Hellespont, where they appear to have grimly held on until relieved by Alexander’s arrival....[Diod XVII.7.10]
The Advance force - a mere 10,000 Macedonians and mercenaries - was hardly ‘adequate’ to do more than secure a beachhead and local allies – and suffered accordingly by the delay caused by Philip’s death. The very name ‘Advance force’ tells you their function – to prepare the way for the invasion ‘Main force’.....
Also, militarily, one doesn’t send an ‘Advance force’ of 10,000 on a reconnaissance mission to ‘discover’the extent of support – a few spies and talking to travellers/merchants will do that far more efficiently and cheaply!
What must be certain is that Philip didn’t intend his Advance force to hang on so long, nor did he assemble the invasion force in order to keep them idle. [ Justin XI.1 “Philips’ army”and Diodorus XVII.2 ff,]

I’m afraid your imaginative( but unevidenced) postulations on this score are rather like Pooh-Bah’s line in the Mikado: “Merely corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative.”

[agesilaos]

A so-called 'Metonic cycle', more properly Babylonian cycle, works on a 19 year basis, and has regular 'inter calary' months - seven - which occur in years 3,6,8,11,14,17, and 19

Care to reference that? Merritt says

Merrit op.ci., p.166, n.39

‘For the correct sequence of years in the Metonic cycle (O I O O I O O I O I O O I O O I O I O) see TAPA, XCV, 1964, p.236.’
Transactions of the American Philological Association, ‘Athenian Calendar Problems’ pp200-260

Try page 29 of the article previously linked to

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES

These deal with the Metonic cycle at Athens not the parallel Babylonian system which you are referring to, Fotheringham calculates his intercalatory years (from the dates given in Ptolemy citing Hipparchos for observations made between Dec 383 and Dec 382, before Kallippos). His calculations match exactly the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 16th and 18th years of cycle demonstrated in the epigraphical evidence (secured by the varying lengths of the pryttanneis).

There are, indeed two inversions during the seventh cycle both increasing the length of the year, and both immediately corrected by the insertion of an ‘ordinary year’; the years in question 318/7 and 305/4 might suggest why this may have happened; though one must wonder what is so relevant about an irregularity 18 years after Philip’s death.

As to this being the correct cycle for Athens and the dates being Metonic, it’s two experts against you, and you seem not to have realised that the Athenian and Babylonian cycles are slightly different, despite having been given a link to the evidence.

Naturally you no longer care about the direct correlation of the Persian and Babylonian Calendars , since that would mean accepting that your previous assertions were not simply erroneous but so obviously so that a moments actual research would (as it did) prove them so. The relevance is that since they were aligned while Macedonia was under Persian influence so that it is entirely possible, though sadly unprovable, that Macedonia had adopted that system at that date.

You simply cannot judge when any postulation falls since the only criterion you judge things on is whether they agree with your own notions. Why else are you convinced in a dearth of any ancient evidence for and in the face of much against that Philip died before Dios; no, I remember now, it was to decrease the length of time the ankylosis would have had to form.

You

“In the army of Philip there were various nations, and after his death different feelings prevailed among them. Some, oppressed with an unjust yoke, were excited with hopes of recovering their liberty; others, from dislike of going to war in a distant country, rejoiced that the expedition was broken off

;”

Yardley has

In Philip’s army, reactions to his death varied with the different nationalities of which it was composed. Some renewed their hopes of liberty believing they had been held in just servitude; others, tired of service far from home, were happy to have been spared the expedition;

and

Rev. Watson has

IN the army of Philip there were various nations, and after his death different feelings prevailed among them. Some, oppressed with an unjust yoke, were excited with hopes of recovering their liberty; others, from dislike of going to war in a distant country, rejoiced that the expedition was broken off;

Ooops! 100% Watson!!

And, you

“To all these apprehensions the succession of Alexander was a relief, who addressed the whole host in an assembly, so effectually soothed and encouraged the people, as to remove all uneasiness from those that were afraid, and to fill every one with favourable expectations.”

Yardley

Alexander’s arrival remedied the situation; he addressed the entire host in an assembly, offering them such timely consolation and encouragement as to eliminate the anxiety of the fearful and inspire hope in them all.

Watson

To all these apprehensions the succession of Alexander was a relief, who, in a public assembly, so effectually soothed and encouraged the people, as to remove all uneasiness from those that were afraid, and to fill every one with favourable expectations.

So in fact you have a nestled quote of five words from Yardley within Watson; par for the course. Seems that your face is something of an egg magnet LOL

Strabo XV 1 xvii

and began their voyage not many days before the setting of the Pleiades, and were occupied during the whole autumn, winter, and the ensuing spring and summer, in sailing down the river, and arrived at Patalene about the rising of the Dog-Star;

So the voyage TO Patalene (Patala)

Arrian Indike 19

This my present work, however, is a story of the voyage, which Nearchus successfully undertook with his fleet starting from the mouths of the Indus by the Ocean to the Persian Gulf, which some call the Red Sea…. XXI. Now when the trade winds had sunk to rest, which continue blowing from the Ocean to the land all the summer season, and hence render the voyage impossible, they put to sea, in the archonship at Athens of Cephisodorus, on the twentieth day of the month Boedromion, as the Athenians reckon it; but as the Macedonians and Asians counted it, it was ... the eleventh year of Alexander's reign.

but alas that unsupported postulation does not appear to fit the facts.

Just what the sources plainly say.

Endel's says

Engel ‘Logistics’ p136
‘The best fixed date for the expedition is the beginning of Nearchus’ voyage, around the cosmical setting of the Pleiades. [n.61. A. 6.21.2.; Str 15.2 5. Strabo wrote that the voyage began when the Pleiades rose ‘epitole’ in the west. But stars, of course, like all other astronomical bodies, do not rise in the west; and obviously Strabo, like Arrian, meant when the Pleiades set in the west. For the date of the setting in antiquity see D R Dicks, ’Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle’ (Ithaca, 1970) 36. The date is only approximate. The time for the march between pattala and the Kumbh Pass includes the operations against the Oreitans, the refoundation of Rhambacia, and Thoas’ reconnaissance.]. The date of their cosmical settingwould be around the fourth week of October in 325BC, when allowance is made, as usual, for haze and dust obscuring the horizon. October is also the month when the south west monsoons cease and the wind circulation becomes northerly.[n.62. Jen-Hu Chang, ‘The Indian Summer Monsoon,’ Geo. Rev. 57 (1967) 394; J W M’Crindle, ‘The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great’ 9London 1896) 167. The monsoons begin here about July 15.] Nearchus wrote [n.63. Arr. Ind. 21.1] that he began his voyage on the twentieth of Boedromion, which would be either September or October. By my count, Nearchus’ voyage lasted about 75 days from Pattala to Harmozia.

Oh Justin too opts for the beginning of the reign post October 1 336,

By this battle he gained the dominion over Asia, in the fifth year after his accession to the throne.
Hoc proelio Asiae imperium rapuit, quinto post acceptum regnum anno ;

Gaugamela is securely dated by an eclipse to October 1st 331, Alexander can only be in his fifth year if he became king after October 1 336. Nevermind

[agesilaos]

LOL! One really wishes that you could manage a whole quote from one referenced translation rather than slotting in the odd phrase where you think it helps your argument. So I guess the doors of the Temple of Janus stand wide once more.

No, ‘vulgus’ is just a crowd, Lewis and Short agree with me and I have little doubt that, were it put to him, so would Yardley, an argument from context which depends on translation of that word is entirely circular. Heckel and Yardley are not entirely certain that it is the army being addressed, though they do seem influenced by the idea of the army assembly

Clarendon, Justin, p77ff
1.8. addressed the entire host. This passage (cf. Diod.17.2.2.) has been taken by Granier and others as evidence of Alexander’s selection by the Macedonian army assembly, the prerogatives of which have been the subject of considerable debate. Errington (Chiron 8 (1978), 88ff.) has demonstrated thatthis meeting like several others mentioned by the Alexander historians, was the equivalent of the Roman contio (that is , ‘a non-decision-taking assembly’, 88) and that Alexander was already king when he summoned the meeting – whether it took place in Aegae, the site of Philip’s assassination, or Pella is uncertain. The purpose of such a public meeting was to establish and enhance the king’s authority or, as in the case of the Philotas affair, to test this authority before taking action. The selection of the king was made by ‘the first of the Macedonians’, the most powerful of the nobility. Hence, Alexander’s recognition by his namesake, Alexander the Lyncestian and the latter’s father-in-law, Antipater, was part of the political manoeuvring that followed Philip’s death and saw also the execution of Heromenes and Arrhabaeus, and later the elimination of Attalus and of Amyntas, son of Perdikkas III. Whether the ‘Macedones’, in an assembly, also swore an oath of allegiance and obedience to the kings, as Hammond (MS 65f.) maintains is not clear: Curt 7.1.29 may reflect Roman practice, Justin 13.2 14, 3.1; 14.1.10, 4.3; Nepos, Eum. 10.2; and Plut Eum. 12.2, all refer to oaths sworn in exceptional circumstances to guardians or representatives of the kings. For recent discussion of the Macedonian assembly see also Lock, CP 72 (1977), 91-107; Anson, (CJ 80 (1985), 303-16 and id, Historia 40 (1991), 230-47. On the terminology see Polo, Athenaeum 81 (1993) 264-9.

Articles are
Anson, ‘Macedonia’s Alleged Constitutionalism’, CJ 80 (1985), pp303-16
Idem, ‘The Evolution of the Macedonian Army Assembly (330-315 BC)’ , Historia 40 (1991), 230-47
Errington, ‘The Nature of the Macedonian State Under the Monarchy’, Chiron8 (1977), pp77-133
Hammond ‘The Macedonian State’ Book
Lock, ‘The Macedonian Army Assemblyin the Time of Alexander the Great’, CP 72 (1977), 91-107
Polo, ‘La Terminologia sobre las asembleas macedonias en Quinto Curcio y Justino’, Athenaeum 81 (1993), 264-9.


Burnstein’s review in full

J.C. Yardley, Waldemar Heckel, Justin: Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, Vol. I, Books 11-12: Alexander the Great. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Pp. 360. ISBN 0-19-814907-7. $85.00.
________________________________________

Reviewed by Stanley M. Burstein, History, California State University, Los Angeles (sburste@calstatela.edu)
Word count: 760 words


Literary excellence and historical importance do not always go together. Justin's epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus is a prime example of this truism. For over a thousand years Justin's succinct abridgment of Trogus' huge work was Western Europe's standard textbook of world history. Over two hundred manuscripts survive, and evidence of its use can be found in numerous historians from late antiquity to the Renaissance. Justin still enjoyed sufficient authority in the early nineteenth century for B. G. Niebuhr to make it the foundation of his lectures on universal history.1 Full scale studies of Justin are few, however, and none has appeared in English. The appearance in the Clarendon Ancient History Series of a new translation of Books 11-122 of Justin together with a thorough introduction and a full commentary is, therefore, welcome.
Books 11-12 of the Philippic History deal with Alexander the Great. Despite their brevity -- the translation takes up only twenty-seven of the volume's 360 pages -- Justin's account of Alexander is not without interest. It is the earliest extant complete Latin biography of Alexander, and one of the principal witnesses to the vulgate tradition concerning the Macedonian king. Together with Julius Valerius' Latin version of the Alexander Romance, Justin provided Medieval Europe with most of its knowledge of the reign of the Macedonian king.
Professors Yardley and Heckel, who previously produced an excellent translation of Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander the Great,3 were ideally suited to produce a new edition of these two books. Their task was not an easy one. Justin is rarely the principal source for any event in his work. This is particularly true of his account of Alexander's reign for which four much fuller ancient biographies survive. The principal value of Justin's account, therefore, is that it serves as a control on the other witnesses to the Alexander Vulgate: Book 17 of Diodorus' Library of History and Quintus Curtius Rufus' History of Alexander the Great. Justin's evidence, however, is rarely straightforward. In the process of reducing the forty-four books of Trogus' great history to the size of an average Teubner volume, Justin often misunderstood or garbled his source, omitting, combining, or misdating important historical events and characters. First and foremost, therefore, translators and commentators must provide their readers with a secure guide through the tangle of confusions that lurk in Justin's text.
Yardley and Heckel acquit themselves well in this difficult task. Yardley's translation is a pleasure to read with its clear and accurate rendition of Justin's rhetorical Latin.4 Heckel's commentary has similar merits. The entries are concise and lucid. Every crux is identified and unraveled, full references are provided to parallels in the other Alexander historians, and brief but well chosen bibliographies are furnished for each chapter. To work through the commentary is to take a well-guided tour of the Alexander tradition as a whole.
The introduction to the volume is the fullest recent treatment of Justin in English. The fundamental problems posed by Justin's work -- Justin's date, the nature of his work, its relation to Trogus' Philippic History, Trogus' goals, his sources, and his biography of Alexander the Great -- are all treated in detail and receive new and often provocative solutions. So, Yardley and Heckel argue convincingly that Trogus' failure to treat Roman history in detail is not evidence of hostility to Rome on his part but of his desire that the Philippic History complement the Roman history of his contemporary, Livy. Their dating of Justin to the late second century AD is also persuasive as is their contention that Justin did more than simply epitomize Trogus' work. Reflecting recent positive reassessments of the literary achievement of the often maligned "epitomators," they suggest that Justin produced an original work that, to be sure, was based on the Philippic History but had its own distinctive style5 and point of view. Particularly attractive is the parallel they draw between Justin and his older contemporary Florus, who similarly used Livy's history as the primary source for a brief but original military history of Rome. Less convincing, however, is their revival of A. von Gutschmid's suggestion that Trogus' work was essentially a Latin version of Timagenes of Alexandria's On Kings, especially since they effectively severed the only link between Trogus and Timagenes, their supposed shared hostility toward Rome.
Yardley and Heckel's translation of Books 11 and 12 of Justin's epitome of the Philippic History is an excellent addition to the Clarendon Ancient History Series. All students of Greek history will eagerly await the publication of the second volume.
________________________________________
Notes:

1. Barthold Georg Niebuhr, Lectures on ancient history, from the earliest times to the taking of Alexandria by Octavianus, comprising the history of the Asiatic nations, the Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians and Carthaginians, translated by L. Schmitz, 3 vols. (London: Taylor, Walton and Maberly, 1852).
2. Curiously, no information is provided concerning the contents of volume 2 of this edition.
3. Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, translated by John Yardley, introduction and notes by Waldemar Heckel (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1984).
4. The translation is a slightly revised version of that published in Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, translated by J. C. Yardley, introduction and notes by R. Develin (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994).
5. Their discussion of Justin's language is an original and valuable contribution (Appendix 5).

Rhodes full review can be found here

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/docume ... eviews.pdf

And the full quote Xenophon ‘sampled’ is

‘The translation is fluent and accurate, but keeps less closely than Watson to the structure of the Latin.’ P318.

I’ll leave it for the readers to decide whether these positive reviews actually mean that every word has been rendered completely accurately or whether a freer approach is not indicated.

Makedones/citizen-soldiers

How about evidencing this this equation, of which you seem so fond of just throwing out ‘alone and without’ a reference. Your distinction is false and would leave Justin scratching his head I’m sure. Or is there some, any, ancient evidence for this assertion?

As usual it is your judgement around the sources which is faulty; just cry ‘digression!’ and ignore it.

[agesilaos]

J C Yardley has kindly confirmed the reasoning behind his translation of ‘vulgus’ as ‘host’,

Dear Karl,

I hope you'll accept the informality of the address. Thanks you for your
email--I am very flattered to be asked to comment on the word.

I can explain why I used 'host' for vulgus, but do not have anything to
say, I'm afraid, on Errington's view of the contio-equivalent--I don't
think I even knew about it when I did the translation. vulgus, as you
note, has a broad range of meaning and is not per se military, but I saw
that Justin in the first two sections adverts to the various nationalities
of which the army was composed (in exercitu...variae gentes), and it
seemed to me that he was perhaps using the word here to express that. Thus
I felt 'host' might be an appropriate translation.

I hope this at least explains why I used it, though I doubt it will be of
assistance to you in your historical thread!

Best wishes,

John.

Which is fair enough, for a commercial publication, but is bringing things to the translation, I would say too much but I am hardly neutral!

[Xenophon]

Agesilaos Sun Jan 3

1. The Calippic reform as evidence that the Macedonian calendar was reformed in the light of Calippus work shortly after the fall of Babylon – not dealt with at all

Dealt with at great length but whilst I have demonstrated the magnitude and timescale of Kallippos’ ‘tweak’ you have produced no sign of a major calendric reform in 330, even Aristotle who allegedly worked on it mentions nothing.

Yes, you have banged on about chronological trivia while completely missing the point – deliberately or otherwise. As A.E. Samuel says in” Greek and Roman Chronology vol 1 partl 7”, page 49
[The Metonic cycle] “......in 432 for astronomical purposes, and it was used for astronomical purposes until the refinement of Callipus. There seems to be no disagreement in the sources that the 76 year cycle, instituted in 330, was the work of Callipus.”

The fact that the Callipus' refinement commences 330 BC, after the fall of Babylon, gives the approximate year in which the data from the Babylonian Astronomical diaries was received and worked on in Macedon and Athens. Moreover, these calendars were astronomical ones, at least at first, and not in common use. Clearly it is some time between 330 and 323 that the Babylonian and Macedonian calendars are made to coincide.
Around that time Aristotle used the work of Callipus, who modified Aristotles 27 spheres to 34, to revise his own work. The ‘spheres’ were the means by which movements of the Sun and planets, including the moon, could be calculated. Refining these meant more refined luni-solar calendars could be devised.

A full explanation can be found here

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES

“The Metonic and Calippic cycles” Fotheringham [1924]. Indeed.... The first piece of interesting trivia I find is that Diod XII.36 tells us that the Metonic year began on 13 Skirophorion, the last day of the archon year, not, as you ( and others) assert 1 Hecatombeion ( the first day of the next archon year). Next, the intercalary months for the Athenian Metonic year run 2,5,8.10,13,16,18 – 1 year less than the Babylonian system ( and yes, I had noticed this). This is no doubt because the Athenian year commenced circa June/Hecatombeion aprox (the exact date could change by up to a month), whilst the Babylonian year began in Spring March/April ( and could also change). But as I demonstrated, this sequence of intercalary months is not regularly followed ( which was the whole point of ‘Metonic’intercalary months), hence the intercalation was ‘ad hoc’. – e.g. the seventh and tenth cycles are clearly not ‘Metonic’, and so on.
But not the civil archon calendar, as Fotheringham says [p.29] : “...in all probability Meton never expected his calendar to be used for other than astronomical or meteorological purpose, though he probably knew that it would provide a standard by which errors in the civil calendar could be measured.”

So like Merritt he agrees the civil Archon calendar was NOT Metonic.

2. Pythodelos archonship being either 12 years 8 months, or 13 years, depending on method of counting – not addressed

There was never a way of counting the way you want and the proof is in the same sentence of Arrian quoting Aristoboulos viz:

"According to the statement of Aristobulus, he lived thirty-two years, and had reached the eighth month of his thirty-third year. He had reigned twelve years and these eight months."

Which means that there were an extra eight months after both 12 and 32 years, and five and twelve intercalations, which only works if the intercalated years are treated as normal, ie no allowance is made for the embolimic months.

[my emphasis]

And that’s the whole point! The Greeks generally reckoned in whole years and odd months, but you can’t ‘count back’ to a particular month that way. You need to allow for the 13 month years and count the embolimic months if you want to know the correct number of months to go back! Anyone who can count can see that.

Further proof ? If you count back 32 years 8 months, you come to a birthday in aprox Dios/October 356 ( just as you come to Dios/October 336 for his accession). But our sources mostly agree he was born in or about July/Loos,with some reservations due to the legend that Philip received news of Alexander’s birth, a victory of Parmenion, and a victory in the Olympic chariot race on the same day, that I referred to earlier.( though not all - e.g. Aelian ‘Varia Historia’Book 2.25:"They say that the sixth of Thargelion[ roughly May/June; Macedonian Daisios] brought much good fortune not only to Athens but to many other cities. It was for instance the date of Socrates’ birth; the Persians were defeated on that day; on it the Athenians sacrifice to the goddess Agrotera three hundred goats, acting in accordance with Miltiades’ vow. The sixth day at the beginning of the month is also said to be the date of the battle of Plataea, when the Greeks were victorious. The previous defeat of the Persians, which I have mentioned, was at Artemisium. The Hellenic victory at Mycale is also accepted as having been the gift of that day and no other, assuming that the victories of Plataea and Mycale were on the same day. Alexander of Macedon, son of Philip, is also reported to have crushed the many myriads of barbarians on the sixth of the month; that was when Alexander defeated Darius And it is believed that Alexander himself was born and departed this life on the same day.")

If we count back the actual number of months (396) instead of the incorrect years and months, that is exactly 33 years before the end of June 323 – i.e. end of June 356 which is close enough to circa July 356, the date most sources give for Alexander’s birth!!!

3. Manipulation of time by ancient officials/leaders as an example of why Alexander’s use of same was ‘normal’ – not addressed

This is another red-herring , we hear of no manipulation by Philip and that of Alexander, if it is accepted, must have been corrected by the end of the year.

Just so - though the correction need not have taken place the same year! In our scanty sources for Philip, we don’t hear of calendar tampering, ( which however isn’t absolute proof it didn’t take place) despite its evident prevalence in Athens ( and probably elsewhere in Greece) – but Alexander apparently did it to avoid ill-omened‘Daisios’, clearly for an important reason, which is likely to be the death of his father the King being a bad omen, rather than mere Macedonian custom. The tampering could be done because it would be ‘cured’ by the next ‘ad hoc’ re-alignment of the calendar. It could not be done under a Babylonian/Metonic calendar, the whole point of which was regular inter-calary months.....so it would seem the Macedonian calendar was not ‘Metonic’ at the time.

We can say this because we have the Babylonian date and the Attic date for Gaugamelat. The Astronomical Diary, BM36761, gives the date as 24th Month VI, Ululu, and Plutarch Alx, 31 6ff, makes it c.26 Boedromion, we do not kbow the date in the Macedonian calendar beyond its being near the end of the month of Hyperberetaios due to Arrian’s use of the retarded calendar which equated Hyperbertaios with Pyanepsion rather than Boedromion,
Arr. III 14/5 ‘ Such was the result of this battle, which was fought in the archonship of Aristophanes at Athens, in the month Pyanepsion';

You are either trying to pull the wool over my eyes, or else you don’t really understand why it is nigh on impossible to pinpoint a particular day in antiquity ( save in exceptional circumstances). And here, on your own reckoning, we have another date which we cannot be certain of ! The Astronomical diary is usually thought of as contemporary, but it was often composed after the event, as the use of the title “King of the World” for Alexander anachronistically indicates. Also what we have is a copy, not the original, and ‘breaks’ are indicated where the original was too illegible to be copied. See this interesting paper : “The Gaugamela Battle Eclipse: An Archaeoastronomical Analysis”by Polcaro, Valsecchi and Valderame, which can be found here:

https://www.academia.edu/220558/The_Gau ... l_Analysis

..........which also suggests the battle actually took place the day after the eclipse i.e. 14 th Ulul/21 Sept 331 BC.

[15] and thus Aristander’s prediction was accomplished, that Alexander would both fight a battle and gain a victory in the same month in which the moon was seen to be eclipsed’.
All three calendars must have been broadly synchronous, so there had been no large scale interference.

Since the Macedonian year began in Dios[Macedonian]/Pyanopsion[Attic]/October[modern], the 1st Oct would equate to the next year i.e. the sixth Macedonian year of his reign, but we don’t know if this is the case because we don’t know exactly when Hypeberetaios or Boedromion began and ended ( they weren’t exactly co-incidental with each other, nor with modern October) . Fortunately it does not matter.

It suffices that the battle and eclipse took place in the same month, which was the last month of the year in the Macedonian calendar, and that year was the fifth of Alexander’s reign – which means once again that Alexander acceded and Philip died some time BEFORE Dios/October 336 BC.

4. Welles postulation that ‘Daisios’/May - June could have been the month in question – now acknowledged
I do wish you would stop misrepresenting what is said:


We can say that the Tenth prytanny of 336 would have begun 14th May and run until 17th June, which would be 6th Daisios to 11th Panemos, so if one disregards Aristoboulos and, probably, Kleitarchos and the archon date, it would be possible to place the assassination in Daisios. It is a pity that we are not told when Demosthenes’ daughter died. That he received advance news does not help with the month of the event.


Pythodelos did not enter office until June 18th 336 so May is out and The part of June which is possible is only so by rejecting Aristoboulos and Kleitarchos in favour od unevidenced modern rationalisations.

There is no ‘misrepresentation’(other than your false allegation that Aristoboulos is being ‘disregarded’. Kleitarchos doesn’t seem to enter into it – I asked why you referred to him earlier, but you ignored it.

The archonship, the Olympic year and the consular year don’t co-incide and are merely approximate indicators of which year Diodorus is referring to. You acknowledged this in dating the Advance force’s crossing of the Hellespont to ‘early Spring’ well outside the strict boundaries of Pythodelos’ archonship.

5. No evidence for use of Persian/Babylonian calendar in Macedon – not addressed, and no evidence offered.

See above, as well as the synchronous months of Alexander’s death. Present any evidence that it was not.

The usual convention that “he who alleges must prove” applies, so it is for you to prove, or at least offer some evidence, not for me to disprove. Your argument here is the totally fallacious type known as ‘Ad Ignorandium’ - that a conviction must be true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. The synchronous months of Alexander’s death ONLY prove that by 323, the Babylonian and Macedonian calendars had been made to co-incide – perfectly logical now that all belonged to a single Empire.

Evidence that it was not? Perhaps not conclusive, but see above, the fact that Alexander intercalates ‘ad hoc’ on more than one occasion.....

6. The year in question not being the literal archonship year, on Agesilaos’ own assertions – not addressed

The Oxyrhynkos Chronographer definitely means precisely the archonship of Pythodelos as does the Marmor Parion, Arrian almost certainly does, doubt over Diodoros is excessively cautious, but if the supporting evidence offends thee…

What supporting evidence? Nowhere in any source is it said that the archonship year is precise to the day. In fact, like Diodorus ( as you acknowleged) it is likely this reference is to an approximate year.

7.The presence of the army at the time, as evidenced in the sources – not addressed saved for flat assertion this means Hypaspists and residents who were citizens, for which no evidence is offered, and which is plainly nonsense on the evidence of Justin and Diodorus!

This has now been addressed and you are the one found wanting in evidence. Bad translations and inferences are not evidence.

Sorry? Apart from your assertion, that only the Hypaspists and locals were present, I must have missed that ! Every scholar I have come across agrees that the army of Philip was mustered and present at the time of Alexander’s accession, just as Justin and Diodorus say. Yardley’s translation is not ‘bad,’ as the reviews - and not just those I quoted -vindicate his work. If there is a flawed translation, it is that of Rev. Watson who fails to translate ‘vulgus’ at all and leaves it out - unless his 'the people' is meant to cover it. And the presence of Philips’ army is not “inferred” – we are specifically told by Justin and Diodorus that it WAS present. Ample evidence, unlike your unsupported assertion which is contradicted by the source evidence! Pretty obvious who is “found wanting in evidence”.

The only confusion is in your own mind, you see a molehill in the distant future and make a mountain.

If anyone is “confused”it is you who, in your desperation to cling to your conviction regarding the date of Philip’s death, are prepared to ignore source evidence, and even to contradict it !

[Xenophon]

Xenophon wrote:A so-called 'Metonic cycle', more properly Babylonian cycle, works on a 19 year basis, and has regular 'inter calary' months - seven - which occur in years 3,6,8,11,14,17, and 19

Care to reference that?

Oh, for pity’s sake,these three for starters:
The Babylonian Calendar
after R.A. Parker & W.H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology at :

http://www.friesian.com/calendar.htm

....or “Babylonian Calendar” here:

http://www.crystalinks.com/calendarbabylon.html

....or Chris Bennett’s site ( who incidently favours a summer date for the assassination/accession, not October) here...

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptole ... cal_fr.htm

....or dozens of other sites – I know you can ‘Google’ for yourself.

Merritt says

Merrit op.ci., p.166, n.39

‘For the correct sequence of years in the Metonic cycle (O I O O I O O I O I O O I O O I O I O) see TAPA, XCV, 1964, p.236.’
Transactions of the American Philological Association, ‘Athenian Calendar Problems’ pp200-260.

....Taken completely out of context. Merritt categorically states that the Athenian archonship civil calendar was not Metonic, as I correctly quoted earlier. Naughty you !

Try page 29 of the article previously linked to

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... lassic=YES

These deal with the Metonic cycle at Athens not the parallel Babylonian system which you are referring to, Fotheringham calculates his intercalatory years (from the dates given in Ptolemy citing Hipparchos for observations made between Dec 383 and Dec 382, before Kallippos). His calculations match exactly the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 10th, 13th, 16th and 18th years of cycle demonstrated in the epigraphical evidence (secured by the varying lengths of the pryttanneis).
There are, indeed two inversions during the seventh cycle both increasing the length of the year, and both immediately corrected by the insertion of an ‘ordinary year’; the years in question 318/7 and 305/4 might suggest why this may have happened; though one must wonder what is so relevant about an irregularity 18 years after Philip’s death.

As mentioned previously, the majority of Athenian archonships do NOT follow the metonic cycle, as Merritt’s table shows. Between the 9th and 17th cycles, not one conforms to a Metonic cycle – the few that seem to previously are probably just co-incidence.

As to this being the correct cycle for Athens and the dates being Metonic, it’s two experts against you, and you seem not to have realised that the Athenian and Babylonian cycles are slightly different, despite having been given a link to the evidence.

I am astounded you can assert such bare-faced falsehoods. As I have quoted previously, neither Merritt nor Fotheringham say that the Athenian archonship civil calendar was Metonic – quite the opposite in fact. And of course I realise the Athenian and Babylonian cycles are different – and the likely reason why [see above ante]

Naturally you no longer care about the direct correlation of the Persian and Babylonian Calendars , since that would mean accepting that your previous assertions were not simply erroneous but so obviously so that a moments actual research would (as it did) prove them so. The relevance is that since they were aligned while Macedonia was under Persian influence so that it is entirely possible, though sadly unprovable, that Macedonia had adopted that system at that date.

Not ‘no longer care’, but never cared in the first place on a subject that is still debated and controversial, and for the simple reason that it is utterly irrelevant to the subject of the date of Philip’s death.

You simply cannot judge when any postulation falls since the only criterion you judge things on is whether they agree with your own notions. Why else are you convinced in a dearth of any ancient evidence for and in the face of much against that Philip died before Dios;

I think that first sentence applies more to your ‘conviction/belief’ driven assertions, whereas I try to take a more ‘evidence driven’ approach.
More bare-faced falsehoods! Not only have I produced ample evidence that he could not have died in Dios/October, but also disproved your assertions based on faulty arithmetic – on more than one occasion - and rather eccentric interpretation of evidence.

no, I remember now, it was to decrease the length of time the ankylosis would have had to form.

I take it you mean this:
Xenophon wrote:Oct 29 p.5 “Philip received his leg wound in the Autumn of 339 BC whilst returning from that Summer’s campaign, and he was assassinated in the Spring of 336 BC, a mere 2 years and some odd months later. Could the knee have become fully ankylosed in such a relatively short time?”

For the purposes of ankylosis “2 years and some odd months” covers both late Spring and October, and Spring was mentioned merely in passing, as a likely date of Philip’s death. How was I to know you were going to make a monster digression, a mountain out of a molehill of a casual mention?

You

“In the army of Philip there were various nations, and after his death different feelings prevailed among them. Some, oppressed with an unjust yoke, were excited with hopes of recovering their liberty; others, from dislike of going to war in a distant country, rejoiced that the expedition was broken off;"

Yardley has


"In Philip’s army, reactions to his death varied with the different nationalities of which it was composed. Some renewed their hopes of liberty believing they had been held in just servitude; others, tired of service far from home, were happy to have been spared the expedition;"


and

Rev. Watson has


"IN the army of Philip there were various nations, and after his death different feelings prevailed among them. Some, oppressed with an unjust yoke, were excited with hopes of recovering their liberty; others, from dislike of going to war in a distant country, rejoiced that the expedition was broken off;"


Ooops! 100% Watson!!

And, you


“To all these apprehensions the succession of Alexander was a relief, who addressed the whole host in an assembly, so effectually soothed and encouraged the people, as to remove all uneasiness from those that were afraid, and to fill every one with favourable expectations.”


Yardley

"Alexander’s arrival remedied the situation; he addressed the entire host in an assembly, offering them such timely consolation and encouragement as to eliminate the anxiety of the fearful and inspire hope in them all."


Watson


"To all these apprehensions the succession of Alexander was a relief, who, in a public assembly, so effectually soothed and encouraged the people, as to remove all uneasiness from those that were afraid, and to fill every one with favourable expectations."


So in fact you have a nestled quote of five words from Yardley within Watson; par for the course. Seems that your face is something of an egg magnet

.
So what? I used Yardley’s better translation to correct Watson’s flawed one. Also, because my hands are crippled by a genetic disease, I can only type with one finger of one hand, so I cut and paste wherever possible, but I would have had to type out Yardley’s translation in full.

Your nit-picking quibble is just another smokescreen to divert attention from the point, which as can be seen in all versions of translation is that Justin and Diodorus clearly have the army present at Philip’s death/Alexander’s accession. I haven’t come across anyone other than you who alleges otherwise, which is quite contrary to what Justin and Diodorus actually say.

Strabo XV 1 xvii

"and began their voyage not many days before the setting of the Pleiades, and were occupied during the whole autumn, winter, and the ensuing spring and summer, in sailing down the river, and arrived at Patalene about the rising of the Dog-Star;"


So the voyage TO Patalene (Patala)

This simply describes a staging point of the voyage – it doesn’t describe Patalene as a destination. You are trying to force a point that doesn't in fact exist. The pause there was obviously to wait for the end of the summer monsoon, and subsequent favourable north-east prevailing winds.

Arrian Indike 19
"This my present work, however, is a story of the voyage, which Nearchus successfully undertook with his fleet starting from the mouths of the Indus by the Ocean to the Persian Gulf, which some call the Red Sea…. XXI. Now when the trade winds had sunk to rest, which continue blowing from the Ocean to the land all the summer season, and hence render the voyage impossible, they put to sea, in the archonship at Athens of Cephisodorus, on the twentieth day of the month Boedromion, as the Athenians reckon it; but as the Macedonians and Asians counted it, it was ... the eleventh year of Alexander's reign."

But as we know from Strabo, the voyage did NOT begin from the mouths of the Indus, but some ten months earlier, and Nearchus described it as well as Aristoboulos . Arrian has the right date, but thanks to his wholesale deletion of ten months of the voyage, the wrong starting place, which fouls up any attempted count-back using only Arrian’s Indika.

Endel's says


Engel ‘Logistics’ p136
‘The best fixed date for the expedition is the beginning of Nearchus’ voyage, around the cosmical setting of the Pleiades. [n.61. A. 6.21.2.; Str 15.2 5. Strabo wrote that the voyage began when the Pleiades rose ‘epitole’ in the west.......... Nearchus wrote [n.63. Arr. Ind. 21.1] that he began his voyage on the twentieth of Boedromion, which would be either September or October. By my count, Nearchus’ voyage lasted about 75 days from Pattala to Harmozia.

One possible reason for Arrian’s confusion, apart from the deleted chunk of Nearchus, is that in both cases, the voyage would be governed by the Monsoon, which runs from roughly June to September, but is notoriously difficult to predict exactly and may begin as early as May and end as late as October. The monsoon runs in two parts, first the south-west monsoon, then the north-east monsoon. Since the voyage was spread over two seasons, in both cases Nearchus would have waited for the favourable prevailing north-east winds, as opposed to the dead foul earlier prevailing summer south-west winds, hence a September/October departure both seasons.

Oh Justin too opts for the beginning of the reign post October 1 336,

By this battle he gained the dominion over Asia, in the fifth year after his accession to the throne.
Hoc proelio Asiae imperium rapuit, quinto post acceptum regnum anno ;


Gaugamela is securely dated by an eclipse to October 1st 331, Alexander can only be in his fifth year if he became king after October 1 336. Never mind.

Gaugamela is NOT securely dated to a date of 1 Oct (modern), rather only to the last month of the Macedonian year, which means that he had to have acceded before ‘Dios/October 336’, as I pointed out in my previous post. It would appear you really are ‘arithmetically challenged’.

I’ll repeat the gist of it for convenience:

“And here, on your own reckoning, we have another date which we cannot be certain of ! The Astronomical diary is often thought of as contemporary, but it was often composed after the event, as the use of the title “King of the World” for Alexander anachronistically indicates. Also what we have is a copy, not the original, and ‘breaks’ are indicated where the original was too illegible to be copied.............

[15] and thus Aristander’s prediction was accomplished, that Alexander would both fight a battle and gain a victory in the same month in which the moon was seen to be eclipsed’.
All three calendars must have been broadly synchronous, so there had been no large scale interference.

Since the Macedonian year began in Dios[Macedonian]/Pyanopsion[Attic]/October[modern], the 1st Oct would equate to the next year i.e. the sixth Macedonian year of his reign, but we don’t know if this is the case because we don’t know exactly when Hypeberetaios or Boedromion began and ended ( they weren’t exactly co-incidental with each other, nor with modern October) . Fortunately it does not matter.
It suffices that the battle and eclipse took place in the same month, which was the last month of the year in the Macedonian calendar, and that year was the fifth of Alexander’s reign – which means once again that Alexander acceded and Philip died some time BEFORE Dios/October 336 BC."

(edited to correct nested quotes)

[Xenophon]

postby agesilaos » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:25 pm

No, ‘vulgus’ is just a crowd, Lewis and Short agree with me and I have little doubt that, were it put to him, so would Yardley, an argument from context which depends on translation of that word is entirely circular. Heckel and Yardley are not entirely certain that it is the army being addressed, though they do seem influenced by the idea of the army assembly


Clarendon, Justin, p77ff
1.8. addressed the entire host. This passage (cf. Diod.17.2.2.) has been taken by Granier and others as evidence of Alexander’s selection by the Macedonian army assembly, the prerogatives of which have been the subject of considerable debate. Errington (Chiron 8 (1978), 88ff.) has demonstrated that this meeting like several others mentioned by the Alexander historians, was the equivalent of the Roman contio (that is , ‘a non-decision-taking assembly’, 88) and that Alexander was already king when he summoned the meeting – whether it took place in Aegae, the site of Philip’s assassination, or Pella is uncertain. The purpose of such a public meeting was to establish and enhance the king’s authority or, as in the case of the Philotas affair, to test this authority before taking action. The selection of the king was made by ‘the first of the Macedonians’, the most powerful of the nobility. Hence, Alexander’s recognition by his namesake, Alexander the Lyncestian and the latter’s father-in-law, Antipater, was part of the political manoeuvring that followed Philip’s death and saw also the execution of Heromenes and Arrhabaeus, and later the elimination of Attalus and of Amyntas, son of Perdikkas III. Whether the ‘Macedones’, in an assembly, also swore an oath of allegiance and obedience to the kings, as Hammond (MS 65f.) maintains is not clear: Curt 7.1.29 may reflect Roman practice, Justin 13.2 14, 3.1; 14.1.10, 4.3; Nepos, Eum. 10.2; and Plut Eum. 12.2, all refer to oaths sworn in exceptional circumstances to guardians or representatives of the kings. For recent discussion of the Macedonian assembly see also Lock, CP 72 (1977), 91-107; Anson, (CJ 80 (1985), 303-16 and id, Historia 40 (1991), 230-47. On the terminology see Polo, Athenaeum 81 (1993) 264-9.

....and I’d agree with that assessment . Alexander’s address to the army was not to allow it to ‘elect’ him, but simply to present a ‘fait accomplit’ that he was now the legitimate King, and ensure that the army supported him, just as our sources say.

Burnstein’s review in full:
“Literary excellence and historical importance......... Yardley and Heckel's translation of Books 11 and 12 of Justin's epitome of the Philippic History is an excellent addition to the Clarendon Ancient History Series. All students of Greek history will eagerly await the publication of the second volume.”


Notes:

1. Barthold Georg Niebuhr, Lectures on ancient history, from the earliest times to the taking of Alexandria by Octavianus, comprising the history of the Asiatic nations, the Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians and Carthaginians, translated by L. Schmitz, 3 vols. (London: Taylor, Walton and Maberly, 1852).
2. Curiously, no information is provided concerning the contents of volume 2 of this edition.
3. Quintus Curtius Rufus, The History of Alexander, translated by John Yardley, introduction and notes by Waldemar Heckel (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin, 1984).
4. The translation is a slightly revised version of that published in Justin, Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus, translated by J. C. Yardley, introduction and notes by R. Develin (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994).
5. Their discussion of Justin's language is an original and valuable contribution (Appendix 5).


Rhodes full review can be found here

http://research.ncl.ac.uk/histos/docume ... eviews.pdf

And the full quote Xenophon ‘sampled’ is

‘The translation is fluent and accurate, but keeps less closely than Watson to the structure of the Latin.’ P318.

‘structure’ here refers to grammar – there is not the slightest hint that Yardley’s translation of latin words is anything but entirely accurate, or that a ‘freer approach’ was adopted.
The portions of the reviews I quoted are not distorted in any way - as Agesilaos incorrectly infers - but accurately reflect the reviewers opinions.
Makedones/citizen-soldiers

How about evidencing this this equation, of which you seem so fond of just throwing out ‘alone and without’ a reference. Your distinction is false and would leave Justin scratching his head I’m sure. Or is there some, any, ancient evidence for this assertion?

It is not an assertion, and the point of the expression is that there is no distinction. I’m not going to be drawn into yet another digression on the subject of "The ‘Makedones’ and the Army assembly." If you want to discuss that subject, start a new thread so that interested people can readily find it, rather than burying it deep within this thread....... In any event there has already been plenty of general discussion on the subject.

In fact, I should very much like to see the subject of "The date of the assassination of Philip II and accession of Alexander the III " split off at my post at Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:27 am and become a separate thread. The first part of my post down to:
"With so many uncertainties, any attempt to establish the date based on 'count-back' is difficult if not impossible, and your calculation is certainly incorrect." would be duplicated ( with the remainder not going to the new thread) followed by Agesialos' next post Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:14 pm in its entirety. Then leaving out Agesilaos' next post and resuming with his post Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:45 pm, and then everything else from then on....

This is because I think such a new thread and its subjectwould be of some general interest, and readers aren't likely to find it on this thread!!

[Xenophon]

agesilaos » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:24 pm

J C Yardley has kindly confirmed the reasoning behind his translation of ‘vulgus’ as ‘host’,

Dear Karl,

I hope you'll accept the informality of the address. Thanks you for your email--I am very flattered to be asked to comment on the word.I can explain why I used 'host' for vulgus, but do not have anything to say, I'm afraid, on Errington's view of the contio-equivalent--I don't think I even knew about it when I did the translation. vulgus, as you note, has a broad range of meaning and is not per se military, but I saw that Justin in the first two sections adverts to the various nationalities of which the army was composed (in exercitu...variae gentes), and it seemed to me that he was perhaps using the word here to express that. Thus I felt 'host' might be an appropriate translation.

I hope this at least explains why I used it, though I doubt it will be of assistance to you in your historical thread!

Best wishes,

John.

Which is fair enough, for a commercial publication, but is bringing things to the translation, I would say too much but I am hardly neutral!

.....and so your earlier assertion, a ‘rationalisation’ – that Yardley was not referring to ‘host’ in the military sense, but rather in an general sense, in an attempt to ‘explain away’ the fact that Yardley and Heckel were quite clear that the army was mustered and present is proven to be incorrect.

Well, I have patiently gone through all your various assertions, and your ‘October’ date for Philip’s assassination/Alexander’s accession, and proved that it is solely based on inaccurate arithmetic – an incorrect ‘count back’ -repeatedly now. That you are ‘arithmetically challenged’ was proven by your earlier assertion that I had counted the inter-calary months twice! An all too obvious boo-boo. In fact I had counted them once, as any child able to count can see, whereas you had mistakenly not counted them at all, thus arriving at an incorrect date on your count-back. This applies not just to Alexander’s accession, but to his birth, and every other date I have referenced.

I don’t know if you are still ‘arithmetically challenged’ despite all my explanations, or whether you are now just being stubbornly perverse. I suspect the latter. I believe this thread has reached it’s end, the subject matter is exhausted, and I am not going to post further. Since you invariably go on forever and insist on having the last word on virtually all threads, no doubt you will continue – but you will need to actually come up with some good evidence, not just repetitious assertions, or eccentric interpretations of source material.

[agesilaos]

It is you who have consistently failed to get the point; your assertion, in case you have forgotten, is that the computed base date of the Kallippic Cycle, 28th June 330 BC, and the Co-incidence of the Macedonian and Babylonian calendars in 323 proves that the calendars were brought into alignment between those years, despite all the writers on the matter, including Samuel p 141, going no further than to say that the alignment must have occurred before Alexander’s death.

Samuel himself says that the alignment may have meant no more than ‘making permanent the relationships as they stood when Alexander took Babylon.’ Which means that the Macedonian calendar must have shared its system of intercalations with the Babylonian before Alexander took Babylon.

Chris Bennett’s interpretation of the timing of Alexander’s death, in the afternoon rather than after sunset

http://www.tyndalehouse.com/Egypt/ptole ... ealogy.htm

The calendars may have actually been a day apart in 323 and still based on independent observation, so the alignment did ante-date Alexander’s arrival and no adjustment had been made to either; the system of intercalations, must have been the same, however.

The fact that the Callipus' refinement commences 330 BC, after the fall of Babylon, gives the approximate year in which the data from the Babylonian Astronomical diaries was received and worked on in Macedon and Athens.

Macedon? Which source places Kallippos in Macedon? Even Aristotle was in Athens at this time, somewhere it says some of the measurements used were taken at the Hellespont (Thrace), but since many more were from Babylon there is nothing to say the measurements Kallippos used in his calculations were taken by Kallippos himself. Though as a native of Kyzikos it would be more likely to place the Hellespontine observations there rather than in Macedon.

Moreover, these calendars were astronomical ones, at least at first, and not in common use. Clearly it is some time between 330 and 323 that the Babylonian and Macedonian calendars are made to coincide.

Non-sequitur, evidence for the general alignment of the Macedonian and Babylonian calendars pre-dates the start date of Kallippos’ ‘tweak’. See above on the date of Gaugamela. If Bennett is right then the calendars were not ‘aligned’ in any case.

Around that time Aristotle used the work of Callipus, who modified Aristotles 27 spheres to 34, to revise his own work.

This is unreferenced and at odds with Aristotle’s own words in the quote you, dubbed ‘irrelevant’ earlier, and then pretended that it was your failure to give an accurate reference to Strabo that was the issue. Aristotle, Metaphysics XII 1073b-1074a has 55 spheres.

The first piece of interesting trivia I find is that Diod XII.36 tells us that the Metonic year began on 13 Skirophorion, the last day of the archon year, not, as you ( and others) assert 1 Hecatombeion ( the first day of the next archon year).

Once again you demonstrate your frail grip on the subject; it was Meton who made 13 Skirophorion 432 equivalent to Hekatombaion 1 (p386), in his system because he wanted the year to begin at sunset on the eve of the summer solstice and his months with each new moon as per Fotheringham p385. 13th Skirophorion is NOT the last day of the archon year that is 30th Skirophorion as can be demonstrated by the decrees recording meetings of both the Ekklasia (Assembly) and the Boule (Council) on this date.

It is the seven intercalations in a nineteen year cycle that make a system ‘Metonic’ in the sense used by Merritt who emphatically says that the Civil calendar was regular and Metonic, and constantly repeating your own misunderstanding will not affect Merritt’s clear statement

‘With these changes it will be seen that the years 128/7 to 91/0, so far as there is evidence, conform exactly to the correct sequence of ordinary and intercalary years in the Metonic cycle. The correct sequence can now be observed, as far as there is evidence, in the fifth cycle (355/4 – 338/7), in the sixth cycle (337/6 – 319/8), in the seventh cycle (exept for two transpositions: in 318/7and 317/6 and in 307/6 and 306/5) (318/7 – 300/299, in the eighth and ninth cycles (200/8 – 262/1), and in the seventeenth and eighteenth cycles (128/7 – 91/0).’ P166

Fotheringham, on the other hand is using ‘Metonic’ to mean the revised year beginning Skirophorion 13, which was never adopted in any state and thus your posited calendar reform vanishes before your very eyes; what was adopted was the intercalation of seven months in a nineteen year cycle, which was regular by the mid fourth century, rendering the confusion you wish to adduce a figment of your own confusion…not confused?

But not the civil archon calendar,

The Civil Calendar is the fixed Prytanny calendar, the Archon Calendar the variable Festival one; QED.

To sum up you think that a calendar which was ably used among astronomers, was aligned to the Athenian year and was a year out of sequence with its intercalations re the Babylonian and Macedonian calendars is ‘solid evidence’ of the reform of the Macedonian Calendar by Alexander. But everything used to point out your error is trivia and irrelevant.

[amyntoros]

In fact, I should very much like to see the subject of "The date of the assassination of Philip II and accession of Alexander the III " split off at my post at Mon Dec 21, 2015 5:27 am and become a separate thread. The first part of my post down to:
"With so many uncertainties, any attempt to establish the date based on 'count-back' is difficult if not impossible, and your calculation is certainly incorrect." would be duplicated ( with the remainder not going to the new thread) followed by Agesialos' next post Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:14 pm in its entirety. Then leaving out Agesilaos' next post and resuming with his post Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:45 pm, and then everything else from then on....

This is because I think such a new thread and its subjectwould be of some general interest, and readers aren't likely to find it on this thread!!

If both parties involved were to self-edit their posts (as listed above) and remove any and all inappropriate remarks and inappropriate responses, to my satisfaction, then I will consider splitting the thread. Until then it remains as is. I do not intend the tone of this particular thread to be spread about the forum, thereby drawing more attention.

[agesilaos]

The simplest thing would just to be to start a new thread and state a position which can then be responded to, I cannot see self-editing working. A fresh start without the baggage would be my option

[agesilaos]

Just to tidy up, then, most points will have been self evident but just to clear some of the obfuscation.

Gaugamela is NOT securely dated to a date of 1 Oct (modern), rather only to the last month of the Macedonian year, which means that he had to have acceded before ‘Dios/October 336’, as I pointed out in my previous post. It would appear you really are ‘arithmetically challenged’.

Daisios 336-Daisios 335 =1st year
Daisios 335-Daisios 334 = 2nd
Daisios 334-Daisios 333= 3rd year
Daisios 333-Daisios 332 =4th year
Daisios 332-Daisios 331 =5th year
Daisios 331-Daisios 330 = 6th year; Hyperberetaios 331 in this year


Dios 336-Dios 335 =1st year
Dios 335-Dios 334 = 2nd
Dios 334-Dios 333= 3rd year
Dios 333-Dios 332 =4th year
Dios 332-Dios 331 =5th year Hyperberetaios 331 in this year

Yardley

"Alexander’s arrival remedied the situation; he addressed the entire host in an assembly, offering them such timely consolation and encouragement as to eliminate the anxiety of the fearful and inspire hope in them all."


Watson


"To all these apprehensions the succession of Alexander was a relief, who, in a public assembly, so effectually soothed and encouraged the people, as to remove all uneasiness from those that were afraid, and to fill every one with favourable expectations."


So in fact you have a nestled quote of five words from Yardley within Watson; par for the course. Seems that your face is something of an egg magnet

.
So what? I used Yardley’s better translation to correct Watson’s flawed one. Also, because my hands are crippled by a genetic disease, I can only type with one finger of one hand, so I cut and paste wherever possible, but I would have had to type out Yardley’s translation in full.

Your nit-picking quibble is just another smokescreen to divert attention from the point, which as can be seen in all versions of translation is that Justin and Diodorus clearly have the army present at Philip’s death/Alexander’s accession. I haven’t come across anyone other than you who alleges otherwise, which is quite contrary to what Justin and Diodorus actually say.

Quote 34 words, excuse 111; res ipsa loquitur; so what? Do you know how to reference, at all? For those who do not, the correct form here would be to copy and paste Watson and then note Yardley's variant and give a reason for preferring it or another variant, that keeps things clear. Of course if you don't speak Latin and 'Lewis and Short' do not give that option the reason for the choice is going to rest on bias alone.

Strabo does not place the start of the voyage he describes in any regnal year; Niarchos places the start of the voyage from the mouths of the Indus in Alexander’s 11th regnal year.

John Yardley has clearly explained that he translated ’vulgus’ as ’host’, purely on his interpretation of the situation and NOT directly from the Latin.

You define ‘Makedones’ but refuse to defend the definition, one is forced to assume that the usual usage of just ‘Macedonian’ is more than adequate; I find no justification for a more specialised usage.

There is nothing whatever in my interpretation that is ‘eccentric’, in fact since Bosworth’s Commentary came out it is communis opinion, with even Hammond agreeing; you will continue to dissent but without any argument in support.

Only Plutarch gives Loos 6th for Alexander’s birthday, which is at odds with both Aristoboulos’ date in Dios and the chronographer’s in Daisios.