i think this question remains unanswered, although you guys have nicely answered on to 'why' he is there. i am simply curious myself, what the historical basis is for this particular general... it seems to me it is likely a name so he has a name, sort of like the Sweboz Family Members, ect. who are not documented or named in oral tradition for 280BC. but if that is not the case and he is a historical name, all the more interesting!
Bookmarks