Diodorus

[Jona Lendering]

"But the military narrative is decidedly weak in Diodoros the battles being mere rhetorical exercises."I know that this has often been said, but I don't know if it's true. Diodorus' description fits better with the cuneiform story of Gaugamela than most Greek sources; re: Granicus, see http://www.livius.org/a/turkey/granicus ... us.html"My point about the story starting with Kleitarchos is that he is usually taken to be writing later than three major works, those of Kallisthenes, Ptolemy and Aristoboulos"Here is some doubt too; there seems to be one point where Ptolemy seems to correct Kleitarchos (see QCR 9.5.21)."By the way did you read my query about your first posting, the Darius tablet?"Please help me again.Jona

[marcus]

Well, Kleitarchos certainly wrote later than Kallisthenes.You're right that there's now a large body who believe he wrote earlier than Ptolemy and (probably) Aristoboulos. I think Bosworth was one of the first to point this out. But is not much of that to do more with the fact that Ptolemy is thought to have written much later than previously thought - ie. Kleitarchos' date hasn't changed, but Ptolemy's has?All the bestMarcus

[agesilaos]

Could the Kiddinnu not be Darius? Diodoros and Justin both preserve his given name as Codomannos, which seems too close for coincidence. The astronomer suggested poses problems, we do not know his dates and there seems no reason why an astronomer now in the rear should be executed.Surely, Hanaean ( if this is a variant of Yauna) may equally well refer to Darius' Greek mercenaries and this may be a note of their desertion. Would line 7 bear the sense that 'Darius the King was gone and he was now Kidinnu '(his name as a private citizen)? This would then explain the next entry. Kidinnu would not have a title as he was no longer king and had reverted to his given name, the royal name now no longer applicable.Just some thoughts my Akkadian etc being non-existant. For Kleitarchos please see my latest reply to Smitty in the Mounted Battallion commanders thread;I will post a fuller argument later on .As for Diodoros' battles they take a prosaic cavalry vs cavalry then infantry versus infantry take enlivened merely by some gory details. They do not stand up to Arrian's narrative IMO. His variant of Granikos is somewhat daft despite your photos, does Hammond not place the battle some distance from the present stream whose bed has shifted considerably since 334 BC?

[jona]

"Could the Kiddinnu not be Darius?"I remember; it took some time because I had to ask an expert; even after he replied, I was able to forget replying to you - it is my absentmindedness, my apologies.The answer is no. There is no evidence for any change of /idi/ into /odo/. Not even /i/ into /o/ is possible, I was told.On the other hand, I am always a bit skeptical about linguistic arguments. Not being a linguist myself, I can be wrong, but I have seen several cases of linguists categorically denying something, and eventually, they had to admit that their knowledge of the laws of language was inadequate. (A famous case is Emil Forrer's claim that Hethite Ahhiyawa rendered Greek Achaiwa, which caused a lot of laughter among linguists, until a Linear-B tablet actually showed this form to exist.)"Hanaean ( if this is a variant of Yauna)"Definitely not. ha-ni-e and Ia-ma-na-a-a are simply two words, and mean Macedonian and Greek.As to the Granikos: I don't know who told that the present bed is not identical to the ancient one, but I guess this is incorrect. See Bosworth's Commentary, who also decided for Diodorus.Best wishes,Jona

[agesilaos]

Still unconvinced about Kodomannos, after all this isn't regular morphology its a cloth-eared Greek trying to get his tongue round Akkadian or whatever pronunciation!On the Granikos the discussion of the site is from NGL Hammond 'THE BATTLE OF THE GRANIKOS RIVER' JHS 100 (1980)pp73-88. I have a photo copy and can send you a copy if you e-mail me your mailing address to agesilaos@aol.com. I'd love to scan all the articles I've accumulated but A) I have not got a scanner and B) it would almost certainly breach copyright.

[jona]

Thanks for the offer to make a copy; but I can check the article in the library over here.Jona

[nick]

"Would line 7 bear the sense that 'Darius the King was gone and he was now Kidinnu '(his name as a private citizen)?"From my knowledge of ancient Persian kingship I would say this theory is absolutely not possible. Being a "king" in Persia was not a "title" nor an "office": the "kingship" was directly connected to the "person". Once a person was acclaimed as king, the king and the person could never more be separated (except by death). Becoming "king" was like a one way street. There was no "undo" option. (At gaugamela.com I have tried to compare this with the present day Roman catholic pope. I still think that is quite a nice comparison.)Best regards -Nick

[agesilaos]

The only thing is that the tablet says that 'they removed him from his throne' and gave Bessus a royal name.

[nick]

Hi Karl -The question then is: can you remove a Persian king without killing him? Or: did Bessus assume the royal title only after Darius was killed, or even before that?Regards -Nick

[yiannis]

In my mind, the king was king for life. Monarchy was absolute and everything in the Persian empire (same as later in the Ottoman and contrary to western-type monarchies) was property of the Great King. There was no institution of monarchy- the institution was the person of the king.
One could not remove him and assume his "position", the king as a person should be eliminated before that, not to mention his whole family. At least that's what has happened in all the previous cases and what happened in the future as well. One can mention here the Byzantine emperors, who would choose a much more humane method of unkrowning the emperor: chop of his nose and ears (perhaps a couple of pieces more sometimes-ouch) and close him in a monastery...

[agesilaos]

The thing is I don't recall any actual code being preserved saying that was the case, indeed Cyrus allowed Astyages to survive his coup, demoting him to a Satrap of Hyrcania, Justin I 6. Sometimes I think deductions are stated a little too firmly.
Also Chronicle 8 clearly mentions Darius deposition and Bessos' assumption of the throne before Darius'murder.

[yiannis]

Without commending on Cyrus, I think that it was necessary for Bessus to kill Darious before assuming power. Even with the support of the eastern Satraps/barons, he wouldn't be legitimate as long as Darius was alive.
Of course that was very convenient to Alexander. Darius, who was the legitimate king, was dead and Alexander was now pursuing the kings' killer. He couldn't have planned it himself. Is it possible that he killed Darius? He certainly would be a nuisance if he was alive, even as a prisoner...

[agesilaos]

Interesting conspiracy theory but I think not, it would have come out at Bessos' trial. But to support my point further, Alexander envisaged an Asia where he was King and Darius a subject although the only evidence is the alleged exchange of letters.