Post by Paralus » Wed Dec 16, 2015 1:18 pm
Xenophon wrote:That’s not what the quotation says, which is “on the point of disbanding” and of course they were not recalled from their own hearths, for they never got anywhere near them – that is just exaggerated hyperbole, of course. Any unit disbandment would not take place until they arrived in Macedon, obviously
.
What this passage absolutely and clearly implies is that the Argyraspides were dismissed from the royal army and deputed a particular job. A job they had completed after which they were on their way to "home and hearth". Eumenes, on the authority of the kings, countermanded this retirement.
More ‘loose’ and incorrect use of terminology, I’m afraid. When Antigenes received the plum Satrapy of Susiane as his reward for his part in the murder of Perdiccas at Triparadeisos in 321 BC [Diod. XVIII.39.2], he needed troops, and he received his own ‘Silver Shields’( now no longer Royal Guards after the death of Alexander. ) to guard treasure, garrison Susa and provide him with troops. That is not ‘dismissed’ in anyone’s language. In military terms it is called ‘detached service’ – a far more accurate term. Subsequently in318 BC Antigenes and the ‘Silver Shields’ were sent home to be disbanded/retire there, and were given the task of convoying treasure to Macedon. They got as far as Cilicia – a long way from Macedon – when they were‘re-tasked’ to put themselves at Eumenes disposal, by the orders of the Kings.[Diod XVIII.58.1ff]. He takes them off to Phoenicia and then East in the long retreat from Antigonus that ends in the choking dust of Gabiene, over a year later in early 316 BC. Ironically this took place roughly250 km EAST of where they had started in Susa!
It is interesting to note that you see recalled from their hearths as "exaggerated hyperpoble" whereas you take Justin's claim the Argyraspides refused service under any other general (demonstrably untrue) as absolute fact. Even though Justin is the single source to even mention such.
Considering they had marched to India via Egypt and back, perhaps they could be forgiven for considering Cilicia practically ‘home’, despite it being over 1,500 km or so away from Macedon!
As to their refusal to serve as Guards to anyone after Alexander, you overlook the circumstantial evidence which is entirely consistent with Justin – the disappearance of the Agema, the detachment to Susa to serve as ‘ordinary’ line troops, ditto their service under Eumenes, who has to form his own Guard/Hypaspists, who in fact take precedence over the ‘Silver Shields’....etc.
Xenophon wrote:We must agree to differ then.....I have previously explained why on balance of probability, the 4,000 veterans were left in Cilicia ( and see Agesilaos quote of Heckel Tue Dec 15, 2015 5:30 pm, where he explains in an aside, his reasoning. This quote raises another point. If Cleitus raised a fleet in Cilicia, where did his marines come from? At full complement [40 per ship] they would have amounted to 9,600 heavy infantry and missile troops.....not to mention crews of 48,000 including 40,800 skilled rowers - not something to be found in abundance in Cilicia at that time. )
Heckel supposes that the Argyraspides were among those sent home from Opis. He argues that Perdikkas picked them up on his way to Egypt. Given that the Argyraspides are not noted amongst the troops of Neoptolemos or Alketas, this does not support Perdikkas picking them up on the way to Kappadokia. Further, Heckel supposes that Antigenes' unit sent back with Krateros from India "must have comprised hypaspists" (Marshals, 323). But the hypaspists are mentioned frequently after the departure of Antigenes.
This is a distraction – I agree with you that Heckel is wrong in this respect, as I have already said, I believe.....
The whole idea that Craterus was building Alexander’s proposed fleet in Cilicia is nowhere even hinted at in our sources. It is a modern postulation by some scholar or another, who is clueless about ancient ship-building, as has been demonstrated. It is pure supposition based on [Diod XVIII.4.4] and the co-incidence that Craterus happened to be in Cilicia with the veterans.
Xenophon wrote:Only because it conveniently suits your purpose, despite its obvious flaws in the Abstract ! Nor do the works overlap; the ten year gap is not at all relevant. You are comparing apples and pears....
And there is no self interest in your Prandi-like dismissal of the archaeology. Your hope that the findings are Roman is palpable.
Here we go again ! The usual false claim and old canard that I ‘dismiss’ something, when clearly I do not. We haven’t seen the archaeological report yet, and I have already said I am curious to do so. I don’t “hope” anything, pending sight of the report – but the existing archaeology is Roman and later, as has been referred to.
In any event, if the slipways do prove to be 4 C, it adds nothing . The whole thing is a crock. Slipways/shipsheds were for storing ships ashore, away from ‘Teredo’ worms and the like. They were not for construction of ships, and could not be so used, as I have demonstrated. The ships that used those slipways, from whatever period, could have been built anywhere, with Phoenicia being a likely guess.
Xenophon wrote:The point is that there are no traces of archaeology that date before Roman Imperial times, apparently.
"Apparently". Whence has departed the certainly? The hope continues.
See above. ‘Apparently’ is there as a note of caution.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:I cannot see this as being correct at all. That Polyperchon traveled back with Krateros is clear; that Kleitos did is unlikely in the extreme and a stretch.
Why do you say this when we are specifically told he did? And if, as you would wish, he took over a fleet built by Craterus in Cilicia, then he must have been with Craterus.
I'd be interested in the specific source attestation stating that Kleitos returned to Greece with Krateros. I can find none.
I’m afraid you are rather mixed up here – see below.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:It is not possible that Kleitos returned to Maceodonia with Krateros and sailed back east to defeat an Athenian naval force late in the archonship of Kephisodoros (323-322).
That is not what I am suggesting. There’s no reason he could not have returned with Polyperchon, or at the same time as he did, well before Craterus and his troops cross, and taken command of the Macedonian fleet in Macedonia.
This line of argument passes my comprehension. You are suggesting that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia "well before" Krateros and that Kleitos returned with him?! Perhaps the pair returned with Leonnatos? Just what source material states that Polyperchon returned to Macedonia before Krateros?
Cleitus is clearly in command of the Macedonian fleet in 322 BC [Diod XVIII.15.8], prior to Craterus crossing [Diod XVIII.16.4], remembering Craterus had some 1,500 km or so to march from Cilicia to Macedon. The situation with Polyperchon is less clear, and we are not directly told when he arrived in Macedon. There is no reason these two needed to stay with Craterus and the veterans, and clearly Cleitus for one did not. Both could have returned in the fleet of Alexander’s ships which convoyed treasure to Macedon prior to the Lamian war. These 110 triremes are recorded as accompanying Antipater at the outset of the Lamian war, [Diod:XVIII.12.2] and which must have been the core of the Macedonian fleet that Cleitus commanded the following year, prior to Craterus crossing. I make no claim to certainty in this regard, but believe this to be the most likely scenario.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:The evidence we have is of Kleitos defeating an Athenian fleet, in June 322, at Amorges, west of Halicarnassos.
Only if one discounts the evidence of Diodorus, and relies instead on fragmentary clues in Plutarch...
It seems you have a very incomplete understanding of this as that statement and those below indicate. Diodorus indicates two battles, the second at the 'Echinades'. The first occurred of the Amorges Islands to the west of Halikarnassos:
Parium Marble, 239 B9:
From the war around Lamia which the Athenians fought against Antipater, and the sea battle which the Macedonians fought against the Athenians around Amorgos, which the Macedonians won, 59 years, when Cephisodorus was archon at Athens.
Plut. Dem. 11.4:
When the Athenians were defeated in the sea-fight near Amorgos, he arrived at Athens before any account of the misfortune had been received...
Plut. Mor. 238A:
Cleitus, when he had scuttled three or four Greek triremes at Amorgos, caused himself to be proclaimed Poseidon and carried a trident...
The battle was obviously fought and is the first of Diodorus' two battles. It took place in the archonship of Kephisodoros. It did not take place in the Ionian Sea.
These are the ‘fragmentary references’ I was referring to. What Diodorus says is:
“
The affairs of the Greeks were thus in thriving condition, but since the Macedonians had command of the sea, the Athenians made ready other ships in addition to those which they already had, so that there were in all one hundred and seventy. Cleitus was in command of the Macedonian fleet, which numbered two hundred and forty. Engaging with the Athenian admiral Evetion he defeated him in two naval battles and destroyed a large number of the ships of the enemy near the islands that are called the Echinades.”
Which is quite contradictory to your above quoted fragments. Diodorus refers to two naval battles near the Echinades islands which are in the Ionian sea, and a large number of enemy ships destroyed. Plutarch refers to “three or four triremes” in an undoubtedly apochryphal moral anecdote.
Xenophon wrote:
Paralus wrote:Indeed, there is absolutely no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be in these waters at this time. What is eminently possible is that he sailed from Asia Minor (Kilikia) to assure Krateros' passage of the Hellespont and met the Athenian fleet which he defeated.
I would agree that it seems unlikely that the fleets were in the Ionian sea, off the West coast of Greece, but that is what Diodorus says.....
That Cleitus started from Cilicia is all but impossible for all the reasons I’ve given previously.
And this is what becomes of quoting one part of a paragraph. My point is that there was no military reason for an Athenian fleet to be off the Amorges late in the archonship of Kephisodoros. Nothing to do with the Ionian Sea.
You cannot reasonably make that statement. The sources for this naval campaign are obscure, as we have seen. Modern scholars down to Walek, Morrison and Bosworth, all puzzle to make sense of our fragmentary information and come up with different solutions.
Xenophon wrote:Diod XVIII.15.8 is quite clear [...] But an editorial note suggests:
“Diodorus has condensed his account of the naval campaign to the point of unintelligibility, although it was probably the decisive factor in the war. We cannot even be sure whether Diodorus intends to mention two sea battles or three. T. Walek (Revue de Philologie, 48 (1924), 23 ff.) reconstructs the campaign as follows. While part of the original Athenian fleet of 240 ships (chap. 10.2) blockaded the fleet of Antipater in the Malian Gulf, the rest held the Hellespont and for a time prevented Leonnatus from coming to the aid of Antipater. Although this fleet was increased to 170 ships, it was defeated in the spring of 322 by the larger fleet of Cleitus at Abydos (cp. Inscriptiones Graecae, editio minor, 2.298 and 493). Cleitus then crossed the Aegean and defeated the other Athenian fleet with great loss at the Lichades Islands in the Malian Gulf (see critical note), and at once removed to Amorgos for the final battle (Plutarch, Demetrius, 11.3; Marmor Parium for 323/2), which ended Athenian sea power forever. It is hard to see how any battle of this war could have taken place near the Echinades (off the west coast of Acarnania), but this name may conceal a reference to Echinus on the north shore of the Malian Gulf.”
In fact as all modern commentators agree - your own certainty here excepted - Diodorus is anything but "quite clear". There is no evidence that Kleitos was ever at Abydos - either inscriptional or literary. The inscriptions referred to do not name Kleitos even though they refer to the sea battle off Abydos. If Kleitos was to fight a sea battle off Abydos it would be to secure the crossing of Macedonian troops. These would necessarily be those of Krateros unless you wish to suggest that Polyperchon and Kleitos returned to Maceodonia over the winter of 323/22 so as to have Kleitos sail to Abydos in spring of 322, with Antipatros' 110 ships, to aid Leonnatos. He would then sail south later in the archon year, with Krateros moving north to the Hellespont, to engage an Athenian fleet off the Amorges where he suddenly has 240 ships?
I believe I have made clear that certainty is not possible.
Your latter suggestion is possible – I don’t care to speculate, since others have and nothing conclusive has emerged.
Diodorus [XVIII.10.2] and Justin[XIII.5.8] record the Athenians intending to expand their fleet to around 200 ships, although they may have fallen short for at ‘Echinades’ they seem to have had 170 in total after expansion [Diod XVIII.15.8] though some may have been detached on service elsewhere. The Macedonians will have similarly expanded their fleet.