Macedonian Soldier Stele

[Paralus]

The dismissal of the Polyaenus evidence is not so simple either. As you do not know the source of the Polyaenus passage, as you've stated, one might expect you to be in less of an unseemly rush to dismiss it.

???? I don't "dismiss" Polyaenus' anecdote at all ! It was even me who found it/the reference !

Indeed you did find it and, to use a different word, you’ve been busily marginalising it ever since. You’ve postulated that:

Polyaenus is obviously drawing on an earlier history for this incident – and I think it possible that this unknown history is the source for Polybius’ belief that earlier Macedonian ‘sarissae’ had been 16 cubits.

The author of that unknown history is then described as an exaggerator and his evidence is not to be preferred:

I believe that evidence is to be preferred to that of the unknown author of the Polyaenus anecdote, with its quite possibly exaggerated length…

And if Polybios did, as you suggest, pick up this “impractical” length from the unknown author, that author is “unreliable” and leads to “mischief” :

....to refer to Polybius' obviously unreliable '16 cubits originally' simply causes un-necessary confusion and 'muddies the waters' to no end...or rather, just for mischief ! :x

When he [Polybios]talks of the ‘original design’ some 150 years earlier, he is clearly drawing on someone else, and it is only as reliable as that someone else...

Self evident but the implication is clear (given the foregoing): that someone else is not reliable. It may very well be the information that Polyaenus' quotes his Pyrrhus strategem from. If that is the case, it is very likely the same source that backs Diodorus 18-20. Polyaenus' strategems for the Macedonians of the of the Diadoch era closely parallel Diodorus where they can be compared. That source is universally recognised as "trustworthy". And, as I mentioned, Plutarch refers to Hieronymus (twice at least from recollection) in his life of Pyrrhus.

Paralus wrote:

I've addressed the notion of original earlier. You would have it that Polybios “original design” must mean that of Philip/Alexander’s day. I disagree: there is no "must" as he may mean his conception of the original design. I've addressed the notion of original earlier. You would have it that Polybios “original design” must mean that of Philip/Alexander’s day. I disagree: there is no "must" as he may mean his conception of the original design.

Huh? ...in the words of a famous Australian ; "Please explain ?" We accept that Philip introduced the sarissa armed phalanx, do we not? ....and "original" means "original", as in 'initial, earliest', does it not?

The explanation is clearly in the excerpted quote.

Time for bed: yet another Christmas lunch and after glad-handing tomorrow. Last one on Sunday. I just need to make it that far...