Mithridatic Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Mithridatic Wars
PonticKingdom.png
The Pontic Kingdom
Date88 – 63 BC
LocationEastern Mediterranean region
Result Roman victory
Territorial
changes
Greece and Asia Minor
Belligerents
Roman Republic divided by the Roman civil wars Kingdom of Pontus and its extensive momentary allies
Commanders and leaders
Magistrates mainly of the Optimates party, but sometimes of the Populares party. Mithridates VI of Pontus and his sons and subordinates, mainly Archelaus (general)

There were three Mithridatic Wars between Rome and the Kingdom of Pontus in the 1st century BC. They are named for Mithridates VI who was King of Pontus at the time. After the fall of the diadochi kingdoms, the heirs of Alexander the Great, he wished to expand his control over the east in competition with Rome. It became clear in the first war that his forces could not stand up against veteran Roman troops. His strength was in masterminding a general revolt of the Eastern Mediterranean region against Roman rule. He gained time also by playing the magistrates of the optimates party off against the magistrates of populares party in the Roman civil wars.

After massive losses of the populations that had revolted in the hope of effective assistance from Mithridates, Rome decided to bring peace to the region by eliminating him. The force of the Kingdom of Pontus was destroyed, and Rome affirmed its power over Anatolia and nearly all the eastern Mediterranean. Hunted, stripped of his possessions, and in a foreign country, Mithridates had a servant kill him. His former kingdom was combined with one of his hereditary enemies, Bithynia, to form the province of Bithynia and Pontus, which would forestall any future pretender to the throne of Pontus.

Origin of the term[edit]

The bellum Mithridaticum, "Mithridatic War," referred in official Roman circles to the mandate, or warrant, issued by the Roman Senate in 88 BC pertaining to the declaration of war against Mithridates by that body. Handed at first to the consuls, it would not end until the death of Mithridates or the declaration by the Senate that it was at an end. As there were no intermissions in the warrant until the death of Mithridates in 63 BC, there was officially only one Mithridatic War. In its final phases it was taken over by the Roman Assembly, which had precedence over the Senate, and which was convinced that the Senate could not execute the warrant.

This latter change, brought about by a new law, the Lex Manilia, after Manilius, its proposer, was a marked constitutional change. It established an alternative path to power besides the consulship and the Cursus Honorum. The empire would before long be created from it.

Subsequently historians noticed that the conduct of the war fell into three logical subdivisions. Some of them began to term these subdivisions the "First," "Second," and "Third" in the same texts in which they used the term in the singular. As the Roman Republic faded from general memory, the original legal meaning was not recognized. A few historians folded events prior to the declaration of war into the war.

Today anything to do with the war can be included under it. Hence "First Mithridatic War" is extended to include the wars between the states of Asia Minor as well as Roman support or lack of it for the parties of these wars. The officers offering this support were acting under other mandates from the Senate; to do anything not mandated was to risk criminal charges at home.

List of wars[edit]

The wars within the mandate of the bellum Mithridaticum are as follows:

First Mithridatic War[edit]

The First Mithridatic War (88–84 BC) began with a declaration of war by the Senate. The casus belli was the Asiatic Vespers, although some few claim that war was declared first; that is, that the Vespers were a reaction rather than a cause. Consul Lucius Cornelius Sulla having received the mandate by lot was given several legions fresh from the Social War to implement the mandate.

Athenion, a peripatetic adherent at Athens sent to Mithridates as ambassador, won over by the latter, returned to Athens to convince it to rise in revolt, making him general. Most of Greece followed suit, some not. Athenion, implementing a new constitution that he believed was based on Aristotle's Politics, conducted a reign of terror on behalf of the redistribution of wealth. The wealthy that could escaped the city to become exiles. Athenion sent an old comrade and known rare document thief, Apellicon of Teos, with a force to recover the Athenian national treasury stored at Delos. It was decisively beaten by the Roman commander, Orobius.

The commanders included Lucius Valerius Flaccus and Gaius Flavius Fimbria. Significant battles included the Battle of Chaeronea and the Battle of Orchomenus in 86 BC. The war ended with a Roman victory, and the Treaty of Dardanos in 85 BC.

Second Mithridatic War[edit]

Third Mithridatic War[edit]

Notices in the sources[edit]

The works of classical historians[edit]

Diodorus Siculus[edit]

Enough remains of Diodorus Siculus to relate a summary of the Mithridatic Wars mixed in with the Civil Wars in the fragments of Books 37-40.[1]

Velleius[edit]

A brief summary of the events of the Mithridatic Wars starting with the Asiatic Vespers combined with events of the Civil Wars can be found in Velleius Paterculus, Book II.[2]

Livy[edit]

The surviving history[3] closest to the Mithridatic Wars is the History of Rome by Livy (59 BC – 17 AD), which consisted of 142 books written between 27 BC and 9 BC, dated by internal events: he mentions Augustus, who did not receive the title until 27 BC, and the last event mentioned is the death of Drusus, 9 BC. Livy was a close friend of Augustus, to whom he read his work by parts, which means that he had access to records and writings at Rome. He worked mainly in retreat at Naples. Livy was born a few years after the last Mithridatic War, and grew up in the Late Republic. His location at Padua kept him out of the Civil Wars. He went to the big city perhaps to work on his project. Its nature sparked the interest of the emperor immediately (he had eyes and ears everywhere), who made it a point to be Octavian, not Augustus, to the circle of his friends (he often found duty tedious and debilitating). Livy was thus only one generation away from the Mithridatic Wars writing in the most favorable environment under the best of circumstances.[4]

Only 35 of the 142 books survived. Livy used no titles or period names. He or someone close to him wrote summaries, or Periochae, of the contents of each book. Books 1 – 140 have them. Their survival, no doubt, can be attributed to their use as a “little Livy,” as the whole work proved to be far too long for any copyist. The events of the Mithridatic Wars survive only in the Periochae.

The term “Mithridatic War” appears only once in Livy, in Periocha 100. The Third Mithridatic War was going so badly that the Senators of both parties combined to get the Lex Manilia passed by the Tribal Assembly removing command of the east from Lucullus and others and giving it instead to Pompey. The words of the Periocha are C. Manilius tribunus plebis magna indignatione nobilitatis legem tulit, ut Pompeio Mithridaticum bellum mandaretur, “Gaius Manilius, Tribune of the People, carried the law despite the great indignation of the nobility that the Mithridatic War be mandated to Pompey.” The “nobility” are the Senate, who usually had the privilege of mandates. There is a possible pun on “great,” as Pompey had received the title of “The Great” in the service of Sulla, the original recipient of the mandate. Sulla was deceased; Lucullus held the mandate in his place. This is an intervention by the tribune in the legal business of the Senate. Now it was the indignation that was great.

The “Mithridatic War” is not just a descriptive term of the historians; it is the name of a mandate. As such it began with the declaration of war by the Senate in 88 BC after the Asiatic Vespers (modern term), the casus belli. Mandates were assigned to the consuls, who, as the name implies, must perform them on penalty for refusal or failure of death. Similarly, only the Senate could declare the termination of a mandate, which is why Livy does not speak of three Mithridatic Wars. Sulla reached an agreement with Mithridates but it was never accepted by the Senate. Interim peace was never anything more than a gentleman’s agreement. Tiring of this political game the ad hoc peace party bypassed the Senate, not only preempting the mandate but also giving to Pompey the power himself to declare it at an end. It ended automatically, however, with the death of Mithridates in 63 BC, the mission being complete.

Florus[edit]

Florus writes the briefest of summaries of the Mithridatic War.[5]

Plutarch[edit]

Appian[edit]

Cassius Dio[edit]

Works of Geographers[edit]

Strabo[edit]

Works of philosophers[edit]

Athenaeus[edit]

Documents of the times[edit]

Peripatetic constitution at Mithridatic Athens[edit]

Greek monumental inscriptions[edit]

Some monumental inscriptions of the times in Greece shed some light on the Roman command structure during First Mithridatic War.

Letter of Mithridates to Arsaces[edit]

Speech in the Roman assembly in favor of Pompey[edit]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "Diodorus Siculus, Book 37 (fragments covering the period 91-88 B.C.)". Attalus.
  2. ^ Velleius 2018, Chapters 17-58
  3. ^ ”History” here means the work of the classical historians, men who set as their targets a general history of events, rather than science, philosophy or creative literature. Some historians wrote contemporaneously with the events, but their work has not survived. Fragments of others survive. This section is for more extensive survivals.
  4. ^ An extensive introduction to Livy and his work is given in Livy (1967). "Introduction". In Warmington, E.H. Livy in fourteen volumes. The Loeb Classical Library. I. Translated by Foster, B.O. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann Ltd.
  5. ^ Florus 2018, Book 40

Bibliography[edit]

Classical Sources[edit]

Further reading[edit]

  • Burcu Erciyas, Deniz. 2005. Wealth, aristocracy and royal propaganda under the Hellenistic kingdom of the Mithridatids in the central Black Sea region of Turkey. Leiden: Brill.
  • Gabrielsen, Vincent, and John Lund, eds. 2007. The Black Sea in Antiquity: Regional and interregional economic exchanges. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
  • McGing, Brian C. 1986. The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator king of Pontos. Leiden: Brill.
  • Sherwin-White, Adrian N. 1984. Roman foreign policy in the East 168 B.C. to A.D. 1. London: Duckworth.
  • Sullivan, Richard D. 1990. Near Eastern royalty and Rome: 100–30 B.C. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

External links[edit]