- Source
- Polybius. Vols. 1-4. Büttner-Wobst, Theodor, editor. Leipzig: Teubner, 1893.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0543.tlg001.humanitext-grc2:12.22.1-12.22.7
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-07
Polybius criticizes the tactical and topographical inconsistencies in Callisthenes' account, concluding that these errors must be attributed to the historian's own lack of experience rather than to Alexander.
τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἅμα τούτοις ἀλογήματα μακρὸν ἂν εἴη1 λέγειν πάντα πλὴν τελέως ὀλίγων.
For it would be a long story to tell all the other inconsistencies along with these, except for a very few.
φησὶ γὰρ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον σπουδάζειν κατὰ τὴν τάξιν, ἵνα κατὰ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτὸν ποιήσηται τὴν μάχην· ὁμοίως δὲ κατὰ μὲν ἀρχὰς καὶ τὸν Δαρεῖον αὐτὸν βούλεσθαι κατὰ τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, ὕστερον δὲ μετανοῆσαι.
For he says that Alexander was anxious about his arrangement of the line, in order to engage in battle against Darius himself; and likewise that at first Darius himself also wished to be opposite Alexander, but later changed his mind.
πῶς δʼ ἐπέγνωσαν ἀλλήλους οὗτοι ποῦ τῆς ἰδίας δυνάμεως2 ἔχουσι τὴν τάξιν, ἢ ποῦ μετέβη πάλιν ὁ Δαρεῖος, ἁπλῶς οὐδὲν λέγεται.
But how they recognized where in their own forces each held his station, or where Darius moved again, absolutely nothing is said.
πῶς δὲ προσανέβη πρὸς τὴν ὀφρὺν τοῦ ποταμοῦ φαλαγγιτῶν τάξις, ἀπότομον οὖσαν καὶ βατώδη; καὶ γὰρ τοῦτο παρὰ λόγον.
And how did a division of phalangites march up to the bank of the river, which was steep and overgrown with brambles? For this too is contrary to reason.
Ἀλεξάνδρῳ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἐποιστέον3 τὴν τοιαύτην ἀτοπίαν διὰ τὸ πᾶσιν ὁμολογουμένην παραλαμβάνεσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐν τοῖς πολεμικοῖς ἐμπειρίαν καὶ τριβὴν ἐκ παιδός, τῷ δὲ συγγραφεῖ μᾶλλον, ὃς διὰ τὴν ἀπειρίαν οὐδὲ τὸ δυνατὸν καὶ τὸ μὴ δυνατὸν ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις δύναται διευκρινεῖν.
Therefore, we must not attribute such absurdity to Alexander, because his experience and training in military matters from childhood are received as universally admitted. But rather to the historian, who, through his inexperience, is not even able to distinguish between what is possible and what is impossible in such matters.
περὶ μὲν οὖν Ἐφόρου καὶ Καλλισθένους ταῦθʼ ἡμῖν εἰρήσθω.
Now, concerning Ephorus and Callisthenes, let this suffice to have been said by us.
- 12.22.1μακρὸν ἂν εἴη
A potential optative construction (optative + ἄν) expressing a mild or polite assertion in the present ('it would be'). It is distinct from a past counterfactual condition using an indicative past tense + ἄν.
- 12.22.3ποῦ τῆς ἰδίας δυνάμεως
The interrogative adverb of place ποῦ is accompanied by the partitive genitive τῆς ἰδίας δυνάμεως, meaning 'where in their own forces.'
- 12.22.5Ἀλεξάνδρῳ ... οὐκ ἐποιστέον
The impersonal construction of the verbal adjective ἐποιστέον (from ἐπιφέρω, 'to attribute'). The dative Ἀλεξάνδρῳ acts as the indirect object ('to Alexander') and the accusative τὴν τοιαύτην ἀτοπίαν is the direct object, meaning 'such absurdity must not be attributed to Alexander.'
Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-25) · Revision history (1, latest 2026-09-21)
- 2026-09-21 AI review — note 1