Forgive the delay in responding on this thread, due to my computer 'dying', including frying my hard drive! It has taken quite a while to rebuild my system! ( Damned built-in obsolescence ! )
Agesilaos wrote :
I have not used Decourt as ‘an argument from authority’ nor have I even implied that ‘therefore everything he says on the subject must be true’; he is nonetheless, an authority whose work deserves to be addressed and credited. You might reflect on your own attitude to Morgan.
Yes you have, and as the above demonstrates, you continue to do so. It is worth reminding ourselves that even Decourt does not support your assertion that there was definitely a ‘central’ north-south route, discarding the possibility in some instances, and merely implying that such a route might be “possible” ( not definite) in others. As we shall see, even that is to overstate the case, for as elsewhere, Decourt fails to consider all the evidence – as do you. I find Morgan’s paper credible and his hypotheses plausible, whist as I have demonstrated more than once, Decourt makes obvious errors, and fails to consider all the evidence, or give it proper consideration and thereby becomes unreliable. One does not accord one scholar’s work ‘parity’ with another’s simply because both are scholars, one has to take into account the quality and plausibility of the respective works.
He is however, ‘unreliable and error ridden’; two examples are produced; that he uses the scholia on a mythological story to make Thetideion more than a simple shrine…but wait you use the same evidence to try to show that it was…sorry you use a snippet of that evidence,
A gross distortion of the evidence I have produced. I have tried – in vain, it seems – to avoid being dragged off on a red herring on the subject of Decourt’s work. I have made it plain more than once that I am simply not interested in a general critique or discussion of his work, but only those points strictly relevant to the subject. It was you who introduced his work on page 2 of the thread, on April 6 (not so long ago), simply to support an assertion that Palaepharsalos lay at the eastern end of the Enipeus valley. This is a plain impossibility, as Morgan demonstrated, because such a location is inconsistent with our primary sources, and the assertion rests purely on the unwarranted assumption that Livy’s list of towns[XXXII.14] destroyed by Philip V is an itinerary, west to east, which it plainly is not, as we discussed previously here. Unlike you, I generally quote only the parts that are relevant to a point, not quote on for pages with lengthy and irrelevant material, as if you can’t distinguish the relevant from the immaterial, which only serves to put readers off. The evidence, of which I quoted an extract relevant to the point, does not support the existence of a town/village in Euripides day (floreat second half of fifth century ), or earlier mythological times. I do NOT use that evidence to demonstrate that it was just a shrine, rather to point out that it cannot be used as evidence of the existence of a village/town – an obvious error of Decourt which you follow.
And why would I need to quote more than the relevant ‘snippet’? Especially when you quoted the whole passage at length on page 4 as recently as April 12 – which incidently illustrates Decourt’s faulty logic admirably, in addition to this error.....
Euripides, Andromache
I live now in the lands that border on Phthia here and the city of Pharsalia, lands where the sea-goddess Thetis, far from the haunts of men and fleeing their company, dwelt as wife with Peleus. The people of Thessaly [20] call it Thetideion in honor of the goddess's marriage. Here is where Achilles' son made his home, and he lets Peleus rule over the land of Pharsalia, being unwilling to take the sceptre during the old man's lifetime. In this house I have given birth to a manchild, [25] lying with Achilles' son, my master.
So, clearly, the evidence works if it is clipped to suit you argument, is this erroneous or deceitful?
Once again, the drip, drip, drip of false ‘ad hominem’ personal attacks. In your previous post, you described me as the most ‘unintelligent’ person here on Pothos ( page 4 April 24, second paragraph) which I chose to ignore, and apparently the moderators also. Such name-calling hardly reflects credit on the site. In this post I am allegedly “deceitful” for the ‘nth’ time, supposedly because I have ‘clipped’/edited the evidence to suit my argument. This an absurd, and completely false accusation. Are you suffering from short term memory loss? As I pointed out above, the whole passage is here on the thread ( and then some). It would be pointless to post it at length again. What is more, as anyone can see, whether ‘short’ version or ‘long’ version, the passage does NOT provide evidence of a town or village, just the opposite, contra Decourt, and since you adopt his mistaken position, by extension you. This is just a clumsy attempted ad hominem ‘smear’, a personal attack because the evidence doesn’t support Decourt’s/your argument.
Only one other ‘error ‘ is put forward from the ‘error-ridden’ Frenchman, that we do not learn from Polybios or Livy that Thetideion ‘was not a city but a village, kome, in the territory of Pharsalos.’ Let us look at what each actually says.
I repeat, I am not interested in debating the merits or faults of Decourt, except where relevant to the location of the Cynoscephalae battlefield. In any case, your memory seems to have failed you again. Since you introduced the ‘red herring’ of Decourt and his erroneous work, back on page 2, I have drawn attention to his errors, failure to utilise source material, bad logic etc a number of times beginning back on Page 2 April 6, when I posted an abstract of his work at length vis-a-vis the location of Kynoskephalae, and explained his errors. I drew attention to errors and incorrect speculations again on p.3 April 8, again on page 4 and also page 5. Despite having dealt with this, we keep going around the mulberry bush because you persist in your incorrect flat assertions, unsupported by any evidence, regarding the location of Palepharsalos ( relevant to the major route to Larissa), where Caesar and Pompey fought in 48 BC, which incidently you agreed couldn’t be at the eastern end of the Enipeus valley ( thus contra Decourt!), and also a supposed central route from Pharsalos to Larissa in antiquity, for which there is no evidence, ancient or modern ( even Decourt only says such a route is “possible” on one of his maps but not others – ignoring the evidence of Strabo, see below – and even Decourt has the major north-south route to the west of Krini.)
Polybios XVIII 20 vi
[6] τῇ δ᾽ ὑστεραίᾳ προελθόντες ἐστρατοπέδευσαν, Φίλιππος μὲν ἐπὶ τὸ Μελάμβιον προσαγορευόμενον τῆς Σκοτουσσαίας, Τίτος δὲ περὶ τὸ Θετίδειον τῆς Φαρσαλίας,
Livy XXXIII 6 xi
[11] ne postero quidem die, cum Philippus ad Melambium quod vocant Scotusaei agri, Quinctius circa Thetideum Pharsaliae terrae posuisset castra,
The significant thing her is that both τὸ Μελάμβιον and τὸ Θετίδειον are described as being in the territory of a city, the former that of Skotoussa and the latter that of Pharsalos, which is not how cities are distinguished, and an example is in the very same chapter
ὁ μὲν Τίτος ἐπὶ τὴν προσαγορευομένην Ἐρέτριαν τῆς Φθιώτιδος χώρας, ὁ δὲ Φίλιππος ἐπὶ τὸν Ὀγχηστὸν ποταμόν
Eretria, a city, is described as within a region, here Phthiotis. So, we do in fact learn from Polybios and Livy that they are not cities, poleis, but komai; Decourt knows more than this because he has surveyed the ground and there are no traces of cities (poleis are walled cities, with the sole exception of Sparta of whom Thukydides famously says [I 10 ‘Suppose the city of Sparta to be deserted, and nothing left but the temples and the ground-plan, distant ages would be very unwilling to believe that the power of the Lacedaemonians was at all equal to their fame. Their city is not built continuously, and has no splendid temples or other edifices; it rather resembles a group of villages, like the ancient towns of Hellas, and would therefore make a poor show’]).
Straw man alert!! No-one, either ancient source or modern suggests that the unknown places of ‘Melambion’ and ‘Thetideion’ were cities in 197 BC. But contra Decourt and your un-evidenced assertion, neither Polybius, nor Livy following him refers to these places as villages/komai.
All this, of course, is in any event a complete ‘red herring’ for I did not utilise speculation as to the location of either (unknown) place in locating the battle-field (nor did Morgan or Hammond). It is immaterial as to what these places were in 197 BC.
Attempts to locate the Kynoskephalae battlefield from speculation as to the location of these unknown places is futile.
Appian, of course tells us nothing of Pompey’s ‘camp at Palaepharsalos’, as at II 10 65 he clearly states,
Accordingly he advanced and pitched his camp opposite to Cæsar's near Pharsalus, so that they were separated from each other by a distance of thirty stades.(Horace White 1899)
καὶ ἀντεστρατοπέδευσε τῷ Καίσαρι περὶ Φάρσαλον, καὶ τριάκοντα σταδίους ἀλλήλων ἀπεῖχον
.
Further, at II 11 75
Pompey drew up the remainder between the city of Pharsalus and the river Enipeus opposite the place where Cæsar was marshalling his forces.
παρέτασσε τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐς τὸ μεταξὺ Φαρσάλου τε πόλεως καὶ Ἐνιπέως ποταμοῦ, ἔνθα καὶ ὁ Καῖσαρ ἀντιδιεκόσμει
If we can trust Appian’s account of Pompey’s supply arrangements then surely we can accept his location for the battle? No? Appian is very poor here, he goes so far as to have Pompey supported by Spartans ‘under their own kings’! II 10 70, Λάκωνες ὑπὸ τοῖς ἰδίοις βασιλεῦσι τασσόμενοι despite the demise of the Spartan monarchy about 150 years earlier. Appian is safer ignored.
The battlefield’s general location is reasonably securely located by Morgan, and you have either not read Morgan properly, or else are being disingenuous and selective in representing his material. We have around a score of references to the battle in our various sources [ see Morgan p.27], and it is likely that by 'Pharsalus' Appian or his source meant 'old Pharsalus/Palaepharsalus' and as Morgan says “
There can be no doubt that Palaepharsalus is the most precise name of the battle.”
As to Appian’s account and problems associated with it, see Morgan pp28-29 and appendix 2 pp 52-53 for detailed discussion. Once Appian is analysed, he provides valuable detail, even if his account contains a number of inaccurate errors, especially when compared to other sources. However, it is unwise to “ignore” any source, albeit one containing errors.
You have also confused Philip’s itinery it is Onchestos on day one Melambion (‘the dark and dreary life’) on day 2 and a short distance on day 3, that of the battle.
I have certainly NOT confused Philip’s march itinerary, and have correctly narrated the sequence several times, beginning on page 1 and continuing throughout this thread. It is you who seem confused, for it was Pritchett and those who follow him who incorrectly placed ‘Melambion’ to the east of Scotussa – see e.g. Pauline’s post April 12 on page 4. Did you not check your facts before posting ?
Flamininus has two 20km stages to Eretria and then on to Thetideion. The first of Philip’s stages is short, possibly about 7km or 2 hours marching, but we have a good reason for this; Flamininus stole a march, quite literally, Paralus is sceptical but if as we posit the Romans marched first, Philip has to receive the news, confirm it is not a feint and then organise his march. So it is not surprising that he did not get far.
My estimate of distances, taken from Google earth is somewhat different. On Day 1 Flamininus marches roughly 15-18k/10 miles or so to the vicinity of Eritrea ( armies frequently covered shorter distances whilst ‘shaking out’ into march order on the first day of a march). Philip, intending to re-victual from Scotussa’s stores ( the crops in the fields were not yet ripe) camped by the Onchestus river there after a march of roughly 25 km/15 miles or thereabouts.
On the second day Flamininus marched roughly 24 km/15 miles or so to the ‘Thetideion’/temple of Thetis, whilst Philip must have covered around 12-15km/9 miles or so to the unknown ‘Melambium’, perhaps due to his men foraging for ‘green’ forage for their animals amongst the unripe crops in the area.
The second day is a more normal march,of about 14 km. On the third Philip is stopped by the weather and Flamininus had determine to halt (this is no dash for a pass, then, rather, as Polybios says an attempt to hamper Philip’s re-victualing). Once the enemy has appeared ‘advancing’ can mean ‘moving toward the enemy’ rather than continuing on a set line of march.
Both sides must have kept the other under observation, if only to ensure the Romans didn’t double back to Pherae. What appears to have slowed both sides is the weather, and it would be wrong to assume that both armies were not making best speed in the conditions. Despite Polybius, as Hammond points out [p.64], there is no evidence that Flamininus made any attempts to hamper Philip’s re-supply; he stayed resolutely to the south of the Karadag range, making for the western pass. Because there is no evidence that either army ‘moved toward the enemy’, Polybius “
Next day they again advanced”[XVII.20.6] can only mean they continued westward, as the 'again' implies.
There is,of course, no requirement for a Caesarian garrison for Krannon to hamper Pompey’s supplies. Each city had armed forces, it was these that failed to keep Caesar out of Gonnoi[sic] after all, they requested, but did not get, military help from Pompey.
Again this is pure supposition, with no evidence whatsoever. Is it really plausible to suppose that a town’s citizen militia are going to suicidally dash out with Pompey’s vast army in the vicinity, to aid a ‘barbarian’ who was apparently clearly going to lose? If there was any doubt as to the likely result of interfering in foreigners civil wars, the fate of Gomphi was a stark reminder.
The sarcasm was fully warranted, you stated that Krini was between Pharsalos and Pherai, that you now wish to say that a route to Larissa would be crucial to Pelopidas in Pharsalos or Alexander from Pherai, which sits on a good road to Larissa, the one Philip V sped down in 197, is equally ridiculous. In 197 two armies were shadowing each other and blundered into battle, in 364 the two armies were advancing towards each other, for Alexander to march passed Pharsalos unmolested and uncover his line of supply to Pherai is no likely in my opinion, he gains no advantage in squatting by Krini.
You choose to interpret ‘between’ in a very narrow sense, whilst I meant in the broad sense, as in “Liverpool is between London and Edinburgh” or “Boeotia lies between Attica and Thessaly”. Nor is it ‘ridiculous’ that the Plaepharsalus area was not of strategic importance to the protagonists in 364 BC. Pelopidas was there to aid the rebels against Alexander, notably Larissa and Crannon, which both lay on that main route north. It would be equally natural for Alexander to advance west and cut off the rebels from Pelopidas. Both armies were on the move when they engaged, there was no ‘squatting’ by anyone. Alexander didn’t go anywhere near Pharsalus, nor, given Pelopidas march north, did Alexander ‘uncover’ his line of communications back eastwards. I suggest you examine what was happening in 364 BC more carefully.
I did get the wrong article and I thank Efstasios for the correction, but that does not invalidate the actual point that ‘to Thetedeion’ is precisely how a village would be termed.
What village? There is no reference to any such thing. Polybius’ “peri to Thetideion” means “around the temple/sanctuary of Thetis”, just as every translator agrees.
Onto Strabo, this is what he says at IX 5 ii
2 These plains are the middle parts of Thessaly, a country most blest, except so much of it as is subject to inundations by rivers. For the Peneius, which flows through the middle of it and receives many rivers, often overflows; and in olden times the plain formed a lake, according to report, being hemmed in by mountains on all sides except in the region of the sea-coast; and there too the region was more elevated than the plains. But when a cleft was made by earthquakes at Tempê, as it is now called, and split off Ossa from Olympus, the Peneius poured out through it towards the sea and drained the country in question. But there remains, nevertheless, Lake Nessonis, which is a large lake, and Lake Boebeïs, which is smaller than the former and nearer to the sea-coast.
As can be see there are very few rivers crossing the plain of Larissa, so this would be one of the ‘most blest’ lands; if this was a bog then each plain must have been.
Why on earth do you introduce a modern map rather lacking in detail, as evidence of what the terrain looked like over 2,000 years ago? The more so when Strabo TELLS us clearly what the terrain was like in antiquity, as I have previously mentioned.
“
so much of it as is subject to inundations by rivers. For the Peneius, which flows through the middle of it and receives many rivers, often overflows;” One of those rivers was the Onchestus, and its tributaries flowing north across the alluvial flood plain, south of Larissa. The lake shown on your map is Lake Beobeis, now much larger than of old ( due to modern damming.) – see my earlier maps for how it looked previously. The plain to the south and to the south-east of Larissa was ‘inundated’ in summer, as Strabo says, and flooded into a very large lake, Nessonis, in winter. Over the centuries, drainage works took place, and there was evidently some sort of riding track, which swung circuitously to the east in place by the eighteenth century. These drainage works continued up until the middle of the twentieth century, when large reclamation works occurred, as basic geographical and historical research reveals. Such ancient wetlands, whilst useless for crops, provided an almost ideal horse-breeding area ( for which Thessaly was famous). Compare the ‘Camargue’ wetlands in the Loire delta of southern France, famous for its horses for thousands of years.
The central route was not a quagmire but a practical route between Larissa and Pharsalos all along.
Having had his attention drawn by me to Strabo, whose description is quite unambiguous, readers may be surprised that Agesilaos continues to repeat this baseless assertion ( for which there is absolutely no evidence until the eighteenth century or thereabouts ) . Still, it is perhaps not to be wondered at. Human beings are by nature irrational creatures, giving way to conviction and opinion, and then seeking to justfiy it afterward, rather than seeking evidence, and then reaching conclusions after examining that evidence. Even trained scientists, historians etc are prey to illogical and irrational thought. This well known human characteristic has been well recognised. For example, Sir Francis Bacon [1567-1636] wrote in Elizabethan times:
"The Human Understanding when it has once adopted an Opinion draws all things to support and agree with iit. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or 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."
Thus Agesilaos cannot be blamed too much for clinging to his conviction of a central major road, despite there being no evidence for it, and strong evidence against it (Strabo, the sources generally, and the general geographical and historical record.) It is a truism that “
no-one is ever persuaded to change their opinion on an internet forum.” – despite the evidence. ( which truism fortunately is not universally true).( For another example of Bacon's point, consider Taphoi's championing of Olympias as occupant of the Kasta tomb on the "Sphinxes thread")
Originally back on page 2 (April 6) I wrote:
“It is curious that even today the modern road does not go all the way to Larissa, petering out well before it gets there at Zappio, some 20 km south of Larissa. A dirt track carries on for another 5 km to the village of Nees Karies, but beyond that nothing whatever. Perhaps the rather low-lying, flat area to the south of Larissa, which today is farmland, was marshy or swampland in antiquity, subsequently drained ?( an old river course meanders through the area).”
Further research has shown that to be exactly the case. We now know with reasonable certainty that the reason there was no major road, or even a track, in antiquity is because as Strabo says, the area was subject to inundation in summer, and we also know this expanded into a large lake (Nessonis – no longer extant) in winter, which even occasionally overflowed into Lake Beobeis. One cannot build roads, or even tracks, across wetlands, and still less so across lakes !!
Therefore, contra Agesilaos' unsupported assertion, there was no major central route in ancient times. By Agesilaos' own reasoning, that makes the heights above Krini the logical location.
Agesilaos wrote on P.1 :
...on principle, however I would concede that were there no route via Zoodikos Pyrge and Chalkiades in ancient times your feature near Krini would be a good fit. Obviously I have to digest this
[edited to add quotation]