Alexander's remains

[Paralus]

All the Successor kingdoms attempted to legitimise themselves via association with the Argead line. This as continuators and / or descendants. Even down to the near last Antigonid, Philip V, we have a note of his claiming this relationship to the Argeads - see Polybius 5.10.1-9 esp the below:

With these examples (Phillip II and Alexander III) constantly present to his mind Philip should now have shown himself to be the true heir and successor of those princes, not inheriting so much their kingdom as their high principles and magnanimity. But, instead of this, though all through his life he was at great pains to prove that he was allied in blood to Alexander and Philip, he was not in the least anxious to show himself their emulator.

The Antigonids were also very much concerned with their own dynastic lineage and its propaganda (the progromoi monument on Delos for example) constantly reinforcing the legitimacy of their line from Monophthalmos down. Thus the traducing or blackening of the founder of the dynasty by Hieronymus is rather difficult to credit. To blacken and discredit the founder undermines the legitimacy of the line.

[Xenophon]

A Digression :

One of the reasons that Forum debate such as this thrives is that two people can read the same evidence..... and draw entirely different conclusions !!

.....And one of the main reasons for this, as has been shown in study after study, is that people do NOT generally take an objective viewpoint, but rather view evidence selectively, through the filter of their existing beliefs, especially if those beliefs are firm.

Sir Francis Bacon, more than four centuries ago wrote:
" The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its former conclusion may remain inviolate."

Modern psychology tests have repeatedly proven Bacon's dictum down the years. People pick out what supports an already entrenched viewpoint, and ignore, or distort, evidence that does not suit their point of view - in other words, argue irrationally. As well, with matters of ancient history, it is usually impossible to prove matters to the standard of criminal law, namely "Beyond ALL reasonable doubt."
Instead, in most instances we can only apply the standard of civil law, viz, "On balance of probability."

In the light of the above, a certain person's arguments about 'possibilities', and lack of evidence for his viewpoint is singularly unconvincing to this reader - case in point being that somehow the cuneiform chronicle's reference to the King battling the Satrap of Egypt is not a reference to Perdiccas' fatal campaign. On "balance of probability" it can hardly be anything else, and no amount of wriggling and "maybe's" will convince otherwise.

I don't claim to have the erudite knowledge of many 'Pothosians' regarding the chronology of the age of the Diadochi, but even I know that the 'High' versus 'Low' debate has largely been over for years, and that current 'communis opinio' is in favour of Tom Boiy's Low-High-Low, or eclectic version, with differences now coming down to months rather than years - perhaps Taphoi should go and look at Jona Lendering's table here, which represents this current view :-

http://www.livius.org/di-dn/diadochi/chrono.html

Both 'Low' and 'High' are likely correct for parts of the period, and in some cases, neither !

There comes a point where, looked at dispassionately and objectively, one must accept that "on balance of probability", ones viewpoint is likely wrong.......

[agesilaos]

I hope Jona has erred in transcribing Boiy's conclusions - he has Eumenes defeating Krateros summer 321 and Perdikkas dying May 320! If news of Eumenes' victory reached the camp on the Nile two days after Perdikkas', I can only suppose Eumenes was using the British Royal Mail, and opted for a second class stamp Shurley shome mishtake.

[Paralus]

I would think it an error on Jona's part. In critiquing J D Grainger's The Syrian Wars (review here) Jona made reference to the fact that Grainger appeared unaware of the more recent "eclectic chronology" of Boiy just as he seemed unaware of the recent cuneiform evidence. Unless Jona has some reason to date Eumenes' defeat of Craterus in 321 (and there is none in the "eclectic") I'd suggest error.

Boiy's "eclectic chronology" below:

[agesilaos]

That is a relief, Jona is human too! And Boiy is not a figure of ridicule, have to let Jona know , it is a pretty table, but he'll be gutted it's rubbish! At least in the early section.

Have to agree with xenophon above but you have to remember that whilst some of us are in trenches others are ensconced in bunkers, which would be ok if they did not spew 'gloriously' misguided slurry at innocents like Amyntoros, egg-chasing oinophiles like Para and myself along with others can roll with it and jab a thumb in the eye...not that one would...if the ref was watching

And, Amyntoros, flattered though I am by your faith in my expertise (and I think Para would concur) you are always welcome to suggest any idea vis-a-vis chronology or any other subject and I/we will either put you straight politely or run away to check we have not royally f'd up; the best way to get to the truth or a new idea is by having to explain
a position. I had never even considered the position of Nora until Xenophon brought it up, all part of the Cicerophobia that still dogs me (two years of Pro Milone ) .

[Paralus]

That is a relief, Jona is human too! And Boiy is not a figure of ridicule, have to let Jona know...

Sent Jona an email.

Have to agree with xenophon above but you have to remember that whilst some of us are in trenches others are ensconced in bunkers, which would be ok if they did not spew 'gloriously' misguided slurry at innocents like Amyntoros, egg-chasing oinophiles like Para and myself along with others can roll with it and jab a thumb in the eye...not that one would...if the ref was watching

"Egg-chasing oenophiles"?! I do like a red or six...teen

"Ensconced in bunkers" indeed. It is oddly fascinating watching as a position is decided upon which is then followed by the search for accommodating evidence. Then follows the spectacle of avoidance of any and all contrary evidence. Bit like watching a rugby team turn down repeated penalty shots at goal that otherwise might have won the game....

[agesilaos]

Somehow I think the last allegory affected us each in a diametrically opposed way Still, at least you acknowledge you ought to have lost!

Good on ya for alerting Jona; I naturally forgot! Distracted by the unscrewing of a bottle top (rum not wine).

[Paralus]

Somehow I think the last allegory affected us each in a diametrically opposed way Still, at least you acknowledge you ought to have lost!

Might have. Bit like that excruciating alternative "if"...

[Paralus]

Something missed in the to and fro of debate on the subject of the catafalque's "hijacking".

However, as it is extremely unlikely that Arrhidaeus was anywhere other than with Perdiccas and his army, it would be logical for a scribe to say "the king did battle with the satrap of Egypt". It really does appear from all your posts here that your argument that it is otherwise is based on your refusal to accept this because it doesn't support your theory regarding the abduction of Alexander's remains. If I am incorrect in my understanding then please explain.

You are quite incorrect. It doesn't make any difference to my theories on Alexander's tomb as to whether high or low chronology is correct.

Observations have already been posted on the nature of the "argument" employed in the defence of the "high" chronology for this hijacking. The above is a classic example of obfuscation and avoidance. The subject is the chronology of the catafalque's carting off to Egypt. Amyntoros has asked - directly - if Andrew Chugg's refusal to accept a date of winter 321/20 is informed by the fact that it doesn't support your theory regarding the abduction of Alexander's remains. The answer is It doesn't make any difference to my theories on Alexander's tomb as to whether high or low chronology is correct. The question had nothing to do with Chugg's theories about Alexander's tomb; the question asked about his theory of the abduction of the catafalque. A question gloriously evaded.

This is the sort of avoidance tactic politicians are coached in: ignore the actual question and answer a question never asked. Expected of a politician but hardly to be expected in historical debate.

Catafalques and chronology. Christmas is coming...

[Taphoi]

In the light of the above, a certain person's arguments about 'possibilities', and lack of evidence for his viewpoint is singularly unconvincing to this reader - case in point being that somehow the cuneiform chronicle's reference to the King battling the Satrap of Egypt is not a reference to Perdiccas' fatal campaign. On "balance of probability" it can hardly be anything else, and no amount of wriggling and "maybe's" will convince otherwise.

I don't claim to have the erudite knowledge of many 'Pothosians' regarding the chronology of the age of the Diadochi, but even I know that the 'High' versus 'Low' debate has largely been over for years, and that current 'communis opinio' is in favour of Tom Boiy's Low-High-Low, or eclectic version, with differences now coming down to months rather than years - perhaps Taphoi should go and look at Jona Lendering's table...

Hi Xenophon,

I have been distracted from replying in this thread for a few days due to pressing business elsewhere. I see that Paralus and Agesilaos have taken this opportunity to declare their victory.

However, the usual diligence of Pothosians in questioning the evidence base for bold assertions that an issue has been decided seems to have been lacking in this instance.
I am confident that you did not intend that your comment should be seen as an attempt to stifle debate, but in order to make this clear I would welcome your specifying exactly who has declared the high-low chronology debate to be over and on what authority? “Community opinion” is rather vague and the eclectic chronology is just a best guess from unsatisfactory evidence. My understanding is that the true position is that the putative triumph of low chronology for 320BC relies almost entirely on the assumption that it is indisputable that the king engaging in battle against the satrap of Egypt in the Chronicle is actually Perdiccas attempting unsuccessfully to have such a battle with Ptolemy. And yet it was exactly that assumption that I have disputed.

Out of interest, how certain are you that the Chronicle refers to Perdiccas acting on behalf of Philip-Arrhidaeus in Egypt rather than Laomedon defending Phoenicia on behalf of Philip-Arrhidaeus against Ptolemy’s assault upon the Empire by land and sea? To be specific, would you:

a) Bet your life upon Perdiccas?
b) Allow a conviction in a criminal case in court upon such “communis opinio” evidence?
c) Confidently bet $1000 of your own money on it being Perdiccas? And if so, what odds would you accept? (Your certainty would appear to require that I only put a token $1 on the table.)

That other evidence does not provide a basis for deciding the issue is easily shown.
Paralus has made great play of the fact that Diodorus says the catafalque was in preparation for “nearly two years”. It would actually have been about 2.3 years in Low Chronology and 1.3 years in High Chronology, so both chronologies are equally at odds with Diodorus’s actual statement.

Paralus also says that the rule of 3 years attributed to Perdiccas by Diodorus supports the Low Chronology. However, of the four ancient sources that round Alexander’s reign to a whole number of years, two state 13 years and two 12 years. We know from Diodorus and Arrian that the truth was 12 years and 7 or 8 months. Hence ancient sources could round durations up or down to whole numbers of years rather arbitrarily. They certainly did not consistently round to the nearest whole number of years, however much Paralus would like them to have done so. In the case of Perdiccas’s rule, Diodorus may be transmitting a statement by Hieronymus that Perdiccas ruled during three Macedonian years, which would be true under High Chronology, but false in Low Chronology.

On both these points, Paralus fails to mention that, if Low Chronology is true, there is a year boundary missing in Diodorus’s own chronology (the only year boundary is that between 323/2BC and 322/1BC giving the correct Athenian archon for 322/1BC – it immediately precedes the departure of the corpse from Babylon). In fact High Chronology for this period would be better termed “Diodorus’s Chronology”, for that is what inspired it and that is the evidence base that is disputed by Low Chronology.

My own preference for using High Chronology for the period is based more on the difficulty of glossing over why Perdiccas and the Grand Army inexplicably “twiddled their thumbs” for an entire year somewhere between Cappadocia and Pisidia according to the Low Chronology. However, I have to accept that there is not enough evidence to be certain that Low Chronology is incorrect. In fact the two chronologies make absolutely no difference for the fate of Alexander’s remains. The corpse just sits in Babylon for an extra year in Low Chronology and all the events involving it are delayed for a year relative to High Chronology.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[agesilaos]

Diodoros, as we have him, fails to mention two year notices, the archon years 321/20 and 320/19, presumably nothing happened in these years?

No one really gives a flying one about your theory about St Mark being Alexander in this thread, and for the record, I think it is an interesting idea and one that is susceptible to proof, but I wonder if you would accept the results of Carbon 14 tests were they to contradict you; on the basis of things on this forum, I reckon not.

No, we are discussing the chronology of the years to 323 -320. You have stated that the reference to royal troops being slaughtered in the Diadoch Chronicle could refer to Ptolemy's attack on Laomedon; Paralus has shown that Appian says the violence was purely against the satrap who declined a bribe; I have shown, from Diodoros, that Ptolemy was not classed as a rebel at the time Antigonos revealed himself to be such.

You even fudged over the Marmor Parium to say that it referred to Perdikkas' death not his invasion and the burial of Alexander rather than the seizure of his corpse, but that still supports the low chronology.

As for twiddling their thumbs Perdikkas moves against Kappodokia in 322, there has to be time for the satraps to get to their satrapies and refuse Eumenes aid, Ariarathres has time to raise 30,000 infantry and 15,000 cavalry, there are then two battles and a pacification of Kappadokia. Since Krateros finally extracted his digit and moved to help Antipatros during this campaign it can be dated to around june 322 as Athens accepted the garrison at Munychia on 20 Boedromion (Plut. Phok 28 I ) ie 20 September after Krateros had helped Antipatros.

The campaign against Laranda and Isauria combined with marriage intrigues and preparations to fight Ptolemy and Antipatros could easily account for 321.

The communis opinio is actually based on the ancient evidence rather than personal whim, I would stake the world on it but in the unlikely event that I proved wrong I cannot see how you could collect, empty posturing is just that.

Since, the chronological facts are so irrelevant why are you so desperate not to admit you were wrong; even I do that!

[Taphoi]

Since, the chronological facts are so irrelevant why are you so desperate not to admit you were wrong; even I do that!

It is you who have argued certainty. It is I who have argued uncertainty. Since there is uncertainty, there is nothing for me to admit to being wrong about.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Paralus has made great play of the fact that Diodorus says the catafalque was in preparation for “nearly two years”. It would actually have been about 2.3 years in Low Chronology and 1.3 years in High Chronology, so both chronologies are equally at odds with Diodorus’s actual statement.

That is wrong. The catafalque, if commenced in late June or early July 323, need only to have been completed in May-early June to have taken "nearly two years".

Paralus also says that the rule of 3 years attributed to Perdiccas by Diodorus supports the Low Chronology.

On this and the matter of "nearly two years". Wheatley and Heckel have the following observation in their introduction to Justin: Epitome of The Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: Volume II pp. 17-18 (my bold)...

...the statement in Diodorus (18. 28. 2) that Arrhidaeus spent nearly two years constructing Alexander’s funeral carriage. This takes the hijacking of the entourage by Ptolemy—the eventual casus belli for Perdiccas’ ill-fated attack on Egypt—into 320 and with it the major events of the First Diadoch War; see 13. 4. 6 n., to escort Alexander’s body. Secondly, Diodorus’ clear statement (18. 36. 7) that Perdiccas was killed after ruling for three years. This peg brooks no demurral, placing Perdiccas’ death and therefore the associated events squarely in late summer of 320;

Of course it brooks no demurral - unless you've an untenable position to uphold and / or consider it "unsatisfactory" evidence.

I also note that the pair accept as "the overall framework" for their commentary "the ‘Eclectic’ or ‘Mixed’ model as advanced by Boiy (Between High and Low) in 2007". Even your fellow travelers of the "high" agree that the Eclectic Chronology, far from being "just a best guess from unsatisfactory evidence", is the best fit for the evidence. Whether or not you think that evidence is unsatisfactory or not is increasingly irrelevant.

On both these points, Paralus fails to mention that, if Low Chronology is true, there is a year boundary missing in Diodorus’s own chronology...

I mentioned early on, in fact, that Diodorus omits both an Olympiad and two Athenian archon years at the beginning of book 18. To realise that you would, of course, had to have read and understood the post. As the following shows, that is clearly something of a difficulty for you.

My understanding is that the true position is that the putative triumph of low chronology for 320BC relies almost entirely on the assumption that it is indisputable that the king engaging in battle against the satrap of Egypt in the Chronicle is actually Perdiccas attempting unsuccessfully to have such a battle with Ptolemy.

Again, you need to read and understand what has been written; not simply what you want to see. Your "understanding" betrays a distinct lack thereof.

My own preference for using High Chronology for the period is based more on the difficulty of glossing over why Perdiccas and the Grand Army inexplicably “twiddled their thumbs” for an entire year somewhere between Cappadocia and Pisidia according to the Low Chronology.

You would prefer to "gloss over" the royal army twiddling their thumbs in the Sinai by putting Triparadeisus in the year following Memphis. I'd explain just exactly what happened here but, given your response to contrary evidence, I'll take the Garrett Breedlove option.

We know from Diodorus and Arrian that the truth was 12 years and 7 or 8 months. Hence ancient sources could round durations up or down to whole numbers of years rather arbitrarily. They certainly did not consistently round to the nearest whole number of years, however much Paralus would like them to have done so. In the case of Perdiccas’s rule, Diodorus may be transmitting a statement by Hieronymus that Perdiccas ruled during three Macedonian years...

So now we are to believe Perdiccas' reign is dated in Macedonian years and / or rounded up? You really need to make up your mind for you are making a nonsense of yourself. Presumably you've abandoned your previous assertion that Perdiccas' reign is recorded in Attic archon years? What next, Mayan years?

You have, on this thread, trumpeted the authority of Diodorus' (supposed) source for this book, Hieronymus, in dismissing others' views. Diodorus categorically states that Arrhidaeus spent nearly two years making ready the catafalque. For you this "seems unlikely" (an "argument" for all seasons that). Diodorus categorically states that Perdiccas died having ruled for three years. For you this must mean Attic archon years, or Macedonian years, or it is rounded. You accept Hieronymus' authority as a source and you then dismiss his chronological markers at your own blessed convenience. This is the same Diodorus who records many a chronological marker (the setting of Orion; the rising of the Dog star, etc.) from a source writing in campaigning years (as opposed the Attic archon years or Macedonian years). The same Diodorus who categorically states that Philip Arrhidaeus' reign was six years and four months. Are these Attic archon years and Attic months or Macedonian years and months?

I'm afraid that I trust Hieronymus' judgement on this point, rather than yours.

Since, the chronological facts are so irrelevant why are you so desperate not to admit you were wrong; even I do that!

It is you who have argued certainty. It is I who have argued uncertainty. Since there is uncertainty, there is nothing for me to admit to being wrong about.

And that about sums up your entire approach: evade the actuality. You singularly fail to deal with the facts; those that are uncomfortable are ignored or managed away - with less and less ingenuity. The current position of the "high" (stated by Bosworth) relies on the backdating of Arrhidaeus' regnal years by the notion of making him co-king with Alexander in that king's final year (a "king of Babylon"). Boiy has conclusively dismantled that argument. The original exposition of the "high" was that of Beloch who proposed it before the discovery and publication of BCHP 3. When the chronicle was published he simply proposed an error on the scribe's part. That, like your "argument", does not wash. Hence the inventiveness of Bosworth. No proponent of the high, to my knowledge, disputes that BCHP 3 (Obv. 23-24) refers to the invasion of Egypt and none desperately suppose that it refers to Laomedon defending himself from Ptolemy. Indeed, the other (former) staunch proponent of the "high", Pat Wheatley, actually sees that in the following terms (Ptolemy Soter's Annexation of Syria 320 B. C., CQ, Vol. 45, No. 2 1995):

The most likely scenario would seem to be that Ptolemy arrived at one of the Phoenician cities with a fleet, negotiated with Laomedon and when the latter proved intransigent, sent Nicanor and an appropriate army to capture him and effect the coup.

That the Chronicle is describing this, rather than the invasion of Egypt by the royal army with the kings, is an argument of utter desperation and you are alone in it.

Agesilaos is correct: this entire thread has nothing whatsoever to do with your theories about Alexander's tomb. That is simply your own diversion and a part of the methodology you've brought to this thread: the methodology of convenience.

[Xenophon]

Hi Andrew,
Taphoi wrote:

I am confident that you did not intend that your comment should be seen as an attempt to stifle debate,...

I don't see why anyone would see it that way.....rather it is an attempt to move the debate along, and not see it degenerate into flat assertions of the Monty Pythonesque "This isn't a proper argument! ....Yes it is...No it isn't" variety.

the eclectic chronology is just a best guess from unsatisfactory evidence.

I'm afraid I don't find this airy dismissal, with not even flat assertions to support it, as convincing as the scholarship of Stylianou and Boiy, and others. If you wish to be persuasive you'll have to do better than this.

....the king engaging in battle against the satrap of Egypt in the Chronicle is actually Perdiccas attempting unsuccessfully to have such a battle with Ptolemy. And yet it was exactly that assumption that I have disputed.

Other than to assert it might have been a reference to Ptolemy versus Laomedon, you have not produced an iota of evidence pointing to such an interpretation. Casting such a doubt is easy - as any historian knows, not much in ancient history is 'certain', or as I put it, little would reach a criminal burden of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". But using the less onerous civil "balance of probability", the evidence supports a reference to Perdikkas' attack on Egypt as more likely than it does a reference to Laomedon, as has been adquately demonstrated, at least for this reader. You would seem to be alone in this unlikely assertion, for no other proponent of the 'high' chronology that I am aware of claims that the reference in question is to anything other than the 'Perdikkan' invasion of Egypt.

Out of interest, how certain are you that the Chronicle refers to Perdiccas acting on behalf of Philip-Arrhidaeus in Egypt rather than Laomedon defending Phoenicia on behalf of Philip-Arrhidaeus against Ptolemy’s assault upon the Empire by land and sea? To be specific, would you:

a) Bet your life upon Perdiccas?
b) Allow a conviction in a criminal case in court upon such “communis opinio” evidence?
c) Confidently bet $1000 of your own money on it being Perdiccas? And if so, what odds would you accept? (Your certainty would appear to require that I only put a token $1 on the table.)

You did read my post, right ? I was at pains to explain that, certainty being impossible, one can only apply "balance of probability." On that basis, the fact that the "King" nominally commanded Perdikkas' invasion, but according to our sources was not involved in Laomedon's defence of Coele-Syria, alone weighs the balance of probability heavily against your dubious assertion, let alone all the other factors that weigh the balance even more in favour of the reference being to Perdikkas' invasion.....

Your questions are what one might put to a 5 year old, but I shall try not to take offence at the patronisation.

To answer, out of courtesy, notwithstanding:

a) Since it is not 'certain' 100% ( almost nothing in history is); of course not.
b) Yes. 'communis opinio' decides all serious criminal matters - it's called a jury.
c) pointless question since it is incapable of resolution, and I never gamble......but were I a bookmaker by profession, the odds on the reference being to the "King's" invasion of Egypt, accompanied as he was by Perdikkas, would be extremely short indeed !

compliments of the season to all !!

[Xenophon]

Taphoi wrote :-

.....but in order to make this clear I would welcome your specifying exactly who has declared the high-low chronology debate to be over and on what authority? “Community opinion” is rather vague and the eclectic chronology is just a best guess from unsatisfactory evidence.

I would suggest the following largely answers your question. Pat Wheatley, ex-advocate of the 'high' chronology, has "seen the light" on the road to Damascus. Which rather leaves you in a minority of one on the subject, and hence convicted by the 'jury' of 'communis opinio'.

Paralus wrote:-

On this and the matter of "nearly two years". Wheatley and Heckel have the following observation in their introduction to Justin: Epitome of The Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus: Volume II pp. 17-18 (my bold)...

...the statement in Diodorus (18. 28. 2) that Arrhidaeus spent nearly two years constructing Alexander’s funeral carriage. This takes the hijacking of the entourage by Ptolemy—the eventual casus belli for Perdiccas’ ill-fated attack on Egypt—into 320 and with it the major events of the First Diadoch War; see 13. 4. 6 n., to escort Alexander’s body. Secondly, Diodorus’ clear statement (18. 36. 7) that Perdiccas was killed after ruling for three years.This peg brooks no demurral, placing Perdiccas’ death and therefore the associated events squarely in late summer of 320;
.........
I also note that the pair accept as "the overall framework" for their commentary "the ‘Eclectic’ or ‘Mixed’ model as advanced by Boiy (Between High and Low) in 2007". Even your fellow travelers of the "high" agree that the Eclectic Chronology, far from being "just a best guess from unsatisfactory evidence", is the best fit for the evidence

Does not logic dictate that you too accept the 'balance of probability', however reluctantly ??