Re: Macedonian Military Numbers
Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:36 am
Amyntoros wrote:
In this instance, I had pointed out that the Cilician coast was ( and still is ! ) very rugged, and did not possess large harbour facilities, or a ship-building industry capable of constructing large ‘polyremes.’Paralus, in support of Agesilaos, interpreted a Greek word to mean Antigonus ‘appointed,’ existing ship-building facilities, including one in Cilicia to build him a fleet.
For my part I pointed out:
1. Yes, the word could have that meaning but not in this context.
2. This unique interpretation runs contrary to all the accepted translations.
3. Such a thing was impossible anyway, because there was no such thing as a permanent warship-building facility in the ancient world, so Antigonus couldn’t have ‘appointed’ existing warship building facilities..
You’ll note that the latter point is nothing to do with definitions, but relies on factual extrinsic evidence.
I could go on and explain how ancient navies worked, the size of crews and their cost, the cost of building fleets and their maintenance, the service life of ships, and just why warships were ‘laid up,’at the end of the campaigning/sailing season either in permanent purpose built ship-sheds ( epineion or neorion) or simply hauled out onto a beach temporarily over winter (naustathmon). No permanent warship-building facilities are known to have ever existed ( not even in maritime cities such as Athens or Carthage). But that is properly the subject of a different thread.
You might have noticed that both Paralus and I have indeed posted “... once saying that they don't agree with said interpretation and then proffering their own and explaining how it leads to their own.”
You have often taken the view that all things are purely a matter of opinion, and whilst true in many cases, it is also true that others are a matter of fact, and constrain the higher flights of fancy. It is also true that some things are just plain impossible. For instance, one could not validly put forward the view that Alexander’s soldiers could fly on the strength of references to “winged soldiers,” because it is a fact that human beings cannot fly.For the record I am making an observation as a member. Disagreements based on the translation of a single word or phrase keep happening time and time and time again in these current debates. As all parties involved seek to establish the "likeliest" meaning according to their own interpretation, then why not just leave it at that? Agree to disagree and stop with the back and forth wrong/right/incorrect/correct/guilty/innocent. I can't speak for other members (although perhaps their silence speaks for itself) but I'm certainly not "taking sides" as in each and every instance it is obvious that there are many possibilities and no one - and I mean no one - can lay claim to knowing the correct one.
This all came about as a result of the observation that we aren’t told and don’t know what Craterus and his 10,000 veterans were doing in Cilicia, where they may have been a considerable time. This itself is based on the assumption that they went straight there, and for instance, were not diverted to put down some unmentioned rebellion, or for some other reason, en route. Some classical scholar, who obviously didn’t understand much about ancient navies, put forward the suggestion that Craterus was building Alexander’s proposed vast fleet, and this ‘canard’, which is quite impossible for many reasons has taken hold – for example Anson refers to it indirectly in the quote earlier. Agesilaos too evidently believes this, despite there being no evidence for such a thing, and the impossibility of it for a number of reasons – as anyone with knowledge of ancient navies readily understands.This and other debates would be so much more understandable if each party posts once saying that they don't agree with said interpretation and then proffering their own and explaining how it leads to their own conclusions. And then leaving it at that. There is no verdict to be proclaimed and no one to proclaim it. As it stands this kind of "debate" would be better served by PM where the parties concerned can fight it out forever if they wish.
In this instance, I had pointed out that the Cilician coast was ( and still is ! ) very rugged, and did not possess large harbour facilities, or a ship-building industry capable of constructing large ‘polyremes.’Paralus, in support of Agesilaos, interpreted a Greek word to mean Antigonus ‘appointed,’ existing ship-building facilities, including one in Cilicia to build him a fleet.
For my part I pointed out:
1. Yes, the word could have that meaning but not in this context.
2. This unique interpretation runs contrary to all the accepted translations.
3. Such a thing was impossible anyway, because there was no such thing as a permanent warship-building facility in the ancient world, so Antigonus couldn’t have ‘appointed’ existing warship building facilities..
You’ll note that the latter point is nothing to do with definitions, but relies on factual extrinsic evidence.
I could go on and explain how ancient navies worked, the size of crews and their cost, the cost of building fleets and their maintenance, the service life of ships, and just why warships were ‘laid up,’at the end of the campaigning/sailing season either in permanent purpose built ship-sheds ( epineion or neorion) or simply hauled out onto a beach temporarily over winter (naustathmon). No permanent warship-building facilities are known to have ever existed ( not even in maritime cities such as Athens or Carthage). But that is properly the subject of a different thread.
You might have noticed that both Paralus and I have indeed posted “... once saying that they don't agree with said interpretation and then proffering their own and explaining how it leads to their own.”
As soon as you posted your request, Page 3 Nov 29, I pointed out my first post was exactly that, and for convenience re—posted it with some additional explanatory notes on page 3 Dec 1. Agesilaos and Paralus have so far not seen fit to respond to your request – probably because there is no real evidence to support their POV that Polyperchon could have had as many as 20,000 Makedones at Athens. As I said, my original post on another thread was not meant to be turned into a debate on a thread of its own, because I believed it to be self-evident and uncontroversial.And this brings me back to something I said earlier when I posted that a summary would be nice - I was hoping for a summary with observations such as "based on my interpretation of (insert passage, word, ref, quote, etc.) as meaning thus, then I deduce these particular figures."
Obviously they don't - this is just a digression on a digression, typical of those that so frequently plague Pothos threads. See also my second paragraph above in this post for an explanation of how we got here....(Because, for the record, I have no idea why building ships or not building ships affects the figures and I've no interest in going back through the repetitive arguments regarding translations of a single word in order to find out why.)