different Arrian translations and editions.

[spitamenes]

I have the penguin classics edition of Arrian and have recently thought of tracking down the Loeb edition. Does anyone know if there is a big enough difference in translation, or information between the two to justify me spending my hard earned cash on the Loeb? Or is there another edition all together that's worth checking into?
Thank you,
Spitamenes

[amyntoros]

The new Landmark Arrian is very impressive, full of maps and illustrations etc., and well worth the money, IMO. And it keeps going down in price, or at least it has since I bought it!

Best regards,

[spitamenes]

I did see that at the store last week, I was suprised by all the extra stuff inside! The illustrations and explanations would definately be an added bonus. but it was a bit pricey at the time. I think I will pick it up when it goes to softback and is about half the price of what it is now.

[marcus]

The new Landmark Arrian is very impressive, full of maps and illustrations etc., and well worth the money, IMO. And it keeps going down in price, or at least it has since I bought it!

Who did the translation?

ATB

[marcus]

The new Landmark Arrian is very impressive, full of maps and illustrations etc., and well worth the money, IMO. And it keeps going down in price, or at least it has since I bought it!

Who did the translation?

ATB

That was a stupid question, as all I had to do was to look at the Amazon page.

I have to say that it looks fantastic, especially because of the maps, etc. And nice to see the essays attached, as well.

Oh dear ... more money to spend ...

ATB

[amyntoros]

The new Landmark Arrian is very impressive, full of maps and illustrations etc., and well worth the money, IMO. And it keeps going down in price, or at least it has since I bought it!

Who did the translation?

Pamela Mensch. I know nothing about her but Waldemar Heckel's BMCR Review of a 2005 book also edited by James Romm, Alexander the Great. Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Quintus Curtius, has this to say about Mensch:

The translations from Arrian are by Pamela Mensch, and they are as lively as one can make the work of an author not generally known for his liveliness. Where I have checked the translation against the original text I have found it accurate and eloquent ...

Oops, you beat me to the punch with your post, Marcus.

Best regards,

[marcus]

The new Landmark Arrian is very impressive, full of maps and illustrations etc., and well worth the money, IMO. And it keeps going down in price, or at least it has since I bought it!

Who did the translation?

Pamela Mensch. I know nothing about her but Waldemar Heckel's BMCR Review of a 2005 book also edited by James Romm, Alexander the Great. Selections from Arrian, Diodorus, Plutarch and Quintus Curtius, has this to say about Mensch:

The translations from Arrian are by Pamela Mensch, and they are as lively as one can make the work of an author not generally known for his liveliness. Where I have checked the translation against the original text I have found it accurate and eloquent ...

Oops, you beat me to the punch with your post, Marcus.

Best regards,

Thanks for the snippet of Heckel, though - beautiful though the book looks, I wouldn't really see the point of having it unless the translation was up to scratch.

I have seen the Landmark Herodotus in the shops and not actually looked at it. I feel I ought to have a closer look, though. The problem is, when one has the Penguin Classics edition, one wonders whether one really needs another one ...

ATB

[spitamenes]

Marcus,
I know I told you the other day that I have only penguins Arrian,so do you think it would be worth my time to track down a Loeb edition as well? Is there actually more content? Or more accurate translation? What are the main differences between the two?

[Paralus]

... do you think it would be worth my time to track down a Loeb edition as well? Is there actually more content? Or more accurate translation? What are the main differences between the two?

Not to put words into Marcus' mouth but the questions would be what are you looking for in the Loeb? THe Loeb Arrian is divided into two books: Arrian I-IV and Arrian V-VII (thus Bosworth's Historical commentary follows suit). As in every other of the Loeb (Greek) Library, the Greek is on the left and the translation is on the right. Such is useful if you are of the bent to check the actual wording used to describe certain matters. For example, the terms used by Arrian regarding the hypaspists. The introduction and appendixes are always useful (from the explanation of the manuscript tradition to the battle of Issos for example) but it is as well to know that scholarship moves on and some of those views may have been challenged and superseded since.

If the Greek is not necessary then I'd likely plump for the Landmark Arrian that Amyntoros has linked. The translation might well be more "current" (though there is not necessarily anything bad in Brunt's - though he revises Robson's) and I would be very interested to see if modern scholarship has seen past mistranslations corrected - Koinos' brigade of asthetairoi at Tyre and the persistent error of "lightest / lighter armed" for kouphos (nimble / mobile / agile).

Just on which, what has Mensch rendered for 3.18.5 Amyntoros? (he took the shield-bearing guards, the brigade of Perdiccas, the lightest armed of the archers, the Agrianians, the royal squadron of the Companions…)

I’d also be interested in her rendering of 3.17.2 (He then took the royal body-guards, the shield-bearing infantry, and 8,ooo men from the rest of his army…).

I note that in the spare pages available to “look inside”, Mensch has rendered 1.1.11 as “He himself collected the agema, the shield bearers…” Nice to see the agema being rendered as such. I’d love to read “Appendix D” though to see her rationale for the note that the agema of the hypaspists were “a special division of light armed infantry” and that the hypaspists were “specially equipped infantry […] lighter and more mobile than the heavy infantry that made up the phalanx”. The hypaspists – in every set piece – make up the phalanx as do their agema. The tired argument that they are “lighter armed soldiers” due to the fact that Alexander takes on missions outside phalanx work ignores the plain fact that so were many other divisions of the phalanx. Whatever we decide of the hypaspists who take the wall of Tyre (certainly not with a sarisa) must just as clearly apply to Koinos’ brigade of asthetairoi – “heavy infantry” who also clearly make up the phalanx. Not to mention the many detachments of phalanx brigades doing similar work to the hypaspists as the anabasis wears on.

Appears I must order the book....

[marcus]

... do you think it would be worth my time to track down a Loeb edition as well? Is there actually more content? Or more accurate translation? What are the main differences between the two?

Not to put words into Marcus' mouth but the questions would be what are you looking for in the Loeb? THe Loeb Arrian is divided into two books: Arrian I-IV and Arrian V-VII (thus Bosworth's Historical commentary follows suit). As in every other of the Loeb (Greek) Library, the Greek is on the left and the translation is on the right. Such is useful if you are of the bent to check the actual wording used to describe certain matters. For example, the terms used by Arrian regarding the hypaspists. The introduction and appendixes are always useful (from the explanation of the manuscript tradition to the battle of Issos for example) but it is as well to know that scholarship moves on and some of those views may have been challenged and superseded since.

The words were well put, Paralus. That is basically what I was going to say. I would add also that the Penguin translation does not show all the "chapter and verse" divisions that I find so useful, which is largely why I got the Loeb in the first place. (Although I "check" the Greek occasionally my Greek isn't good enough to go so far as to check translation, although I do like to see what word is used at times.)

If the Greek is not necessary then I'd likely plump for the Landmark Arrian that Amyntoros has linked. The translation might well be more "current" (though there is not necessarily anything bad in Brunt's - though he revises Robson's) and I would be very interested to see if modern scholarship has seen past mistranslations corrected - Koinos' brigade of asthetairoi at Tyre and the persistent error of "lightest / lighter armed" for kouphos (nimble / mobile / agile).

Just on which, what has Mensch rendered for 3.18.5 Amyntoros? (he took the shield-bearing guards, the brigade of Perdiccas, the lightest armed of the archers, the Agrianians, the royal squadron of the Companions…)

I suppose that translation came from the supposition that if the troops were more nimble and agile, then they must have been lighter-armed? It is interesting that using "lighter-armed" as the translation has become the standard.

ATB

[Paralus]

Just on which, what has Mensch rendered for 3.18.5 Amyntoros? (he took the shield-bearing guards, the brigade of Perdiccas, the lightest armed of the archers, the Agrianians, the royal squadron of the Companions…)

I suppose that translation came from the supposition that if the troops were more nimble and agile, then they must have been lighter-armed? It is interesting that using "lighter-armed" as the translation has become the standard.

ATB

Possibly but Arrian also uses psiloi for light armed as well. Agesilaos will know where to find it but if memory serves we also have the "lightest of the light armed" somewhere. "Lightest of the archers" is, of itself, something of an oddity; one wonders at a heavily-armed archer". Clearly more mobile or agile (or even fittest) is preferred particularly in situations where the "heavy infantry" is left behind and Alexander then chooses the most kouphos of his phalanx et al (must eventually go look for that line).

The translation is utilsed by those scholars - such as Markle - who posit the hypapsists as lighter armed than the phalanx. As I noted earlier, it seems not to matter when Alexander chooses Polyperchon's brigade for similar missions or Koinos' at Tyre. Such would indicate most agile / fittest.

[spitamenes]

Thanks guys, I'm going to be honest and say I did not know Loeb had the greek translations, but I do remember years ago seeing an Arrian with greek on one page and the translation on the other. And I've been looking for it since. So that's great, ill grab that up first.
And it just happens to be payday. : )
Thanks again,
Spitamenes

[marcus]

Just on which, what has Mensch rendered for 3.18.5 Amyntoros? (he took the shield-bearing guards, the brigade of Perdiccas, the lightest armed of the archers, the Agrianians, the royal squadron of the Companions…)

I suppose that translation came from the supposition that if the troops were more nimble and agile, then they must have been lighter-armed? It is interesting that using "lighter-armed" as the translation has become the standard.

Possibly but Arrian also uses psiloi for light armed as well. Agesilaos will know where to find it but if memory serves we also have the "lightest of the light armed" somewhere. "Lightest of the archers" is, of itself, something of an oddity; one wonders at a heavily-armed archer". Clearly more mobile or agile (or even fittest) is preferred particularly in situations where the "heavy infantry" is left behind and Alexander then chooses the most kouphos of his phalanx et al (must eventually go look for that line).

The translation is utilsed by those scholars - such as Markle - who posit the hypapsists as lighter armed than the phalanx. As I noted earlier, it seems not to matter when Alexander chooses Polyperchon's brigade for similar missions or Koinos' at Tyre. Such would indicate most agile / fittest.

I suppose that's where the translation as "light-armed" falls down! But I still reckon that's why it was originally used.

ATB

[Paralus]

But I still reckon that's why it was originally used.

ATB

Without doubt. I wonder at the persistence though. Arrian uses psiloi, or its variants, 91 times throughout the Anabasis and he uses it to describe the "light" infantry of Alexander's forces. For example:

4.4.6: But Alexander mixed the archers, the Agrianians, and other light troops [psilois] under- the command of Balacrus...

4.29.1: Ptolemy, son of Lagus, the confidential bodyguard, in command of the Agrianians and the other light-armed troops [psilous]...

1.13.1: Hegelochus at the head of the cavalry, who were armed with the long pike, and about 500 of the light-armed troops[psilon]...

You get the idea and so there's no need to go through the other 88 notices! Clearly Arrian well knew that what his sources describe as "light armed" troops were psiloi or visa-versa. What then happens when we have kouphos (or its variants) used along with psiloi? We get the absurd below:

2.4.6: Alexander led his cavalry and the lightest of his light infantry to Tarsus [te hippeas kai ton psilōn hosoi kouphotatoi...]

Clealry what is meant is most mobile/agile of the light infantry that he took (archers and Argianians). The reasons for this mobility may have more to do with fitness, strength or experience or even those better able to proceed after the march. The implication, otherwise, is that the Argianians (and the archers) - by definition light armed troops - comprised a more heavily armed component.

[agesilaos]

There is also a case where Alexander takes 'the most lightly equipped (kouphatoutoi) and best armed (euhoplismos)' maybe they had gold inlaid javelins and silk loincloths!
It is clear that kouphos must mean 'fittest' etc. Sorry can't remember the chapter and verse.