581

 THE KINGDOM OF PONTUS AND THE ROMAN REPUBLIC

ii
ABSTRACT
Anatolia, which is called ‘’Asia Minor’’ in ancient sources, after the death of Alexander The Great in 323 BC, became an arena for the struggles of Macedonian generals in Alexander's Army. This process laid the groundwork for the establishment of many new kingdoms in Asia Minor. The Romans who came to the region thereafter resorted to various strategies to capture the riches of Asia Minor and were very successful in implementing them. Members of the dynasty that ruled in the kingdom of Pontus, on the other hand, were able to partially prevail in their ongoing struggle with the Roman Republic and partially suffered great defeats. However, the Kingdom of Pontus resisted the policies of the Romans and kept Asia Minor, which was the scene of many struggles, away from the domination of the Roman Republic for a long time.
Although the Kingdom of Pontus was influential for long periods in Roman Republic history, it was not much of a subject for historians. In this way, information and facts about the Kingdom of Pontus were collected and unearthed piecemeal from the works of many different historians. In this study, the views of the writers of antiquity will be discussed and the relations of the members of the Pontus dynasty with the Roman Republic and the activities of the Kingdom of Pontus related to the Roman Republic will be discussed.
Key Words: [Pontus, Pontus Dynasty, Asia Minor, Roman Republic]
iii
ÖZET
Antik kaynaklarda ‘’Küçük Asya’’ diye tabir edilen Anadolu, Büyük İskenderin M.Ö 323 yılında ölümüyle, ordusunda bulunan Makedon kökenli generallerin mücadelelerine sahne olmuş, bu süreç Küçük Asya’da birçok yeni krallığın kurulmasına zemin hazırlamıştır. Ardından bölgeye gelen Romalılar ise, Küçük Asya’nın zenginliklerini ele geçirmek için çeşitli stratejilere başvurmuş, bunda da başarılı olmuştur. Ancak Pontus Krallığı, Romalıların uyguladığı politikalara direnmiş, birçok mücadeleye sahne olan Küçük Asya'yı uzun süre Roma Cumhuriyeti’nin hakimiyetinden uzak tutmuştur. Pontus Krallığı, Roma tarihinde uzun süre yer edinmiş olmasına rağmen, çok fazla konu edilmemiştir.
Pontus Krallığında hüküm süren hanedan üyeleri ise, Roma ile süre gelen mücadelelerinde kısmen üstünlük sağlayabilmiş, kısmen de büyük yenilgiler almıştır. Bu yüzden birçok Antikçağ yazarı tarafından kaleme alınmış eserler de Pontus Krallığı ile ilgili çeşitli bilgiler ve gerçekler gün yüzüne çıkarılabilmiştir. Bu çalışmamız da Antik Çağ yazarlarının görüşleri ele alınarak Pontus hanedan üyelerinin Roma Cumhuriyetiyle ilişkileri ve Pontus Krallığı’nın Roma Cumhuriyeti ile ilgili faaliyetlerine değinilecektir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: [Pontus, Pontus Hanedanlığı, Küçük Asya, Roma Cumhuriyeti]
iv

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................................................ I
ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................II
ÖZET ....................................................................................................................................... .III
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...………………………………………………………………………...IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………….……………………………………………….....V
LIST OF FIGURES…….………………….………………………………………………...VII
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
2. ORIGIN AND ETHNIC TERMINOLOGY OF THE NAME PONTUS .............................. 3
2.1 Geography of Pontus in Antique Artefacts …………..……..….…………………5
2.2 Hellenistic Period in Asia Minor.....……………………………………………….7
2.3 Origin and Foundation of the Pontus Dynasty …...………..........…..………...….10
3. KINGDOM OF PONTUS (301 BC – BC 63)……………………………………………. . 12
3.1 Mithradates I. Ktistes (BC 301 – BC 266) ………...…..………..………..……....13 3.2 Ariobarzanes (BC 266 – BC 250)….………..…...…….…..……….…....…..…...14 3.3 II. Mithradates (BC 250 – BC 220)……….…….…..……………….…....……...15 3.4 III. Mithradates (BC 220 – BC 197)………………………..…..……….…..…...17 3.5 I. Pharnaces (BC 197 – BC 160/159)……………...............……….…..….....…...18 3.6 Mithradates IV. Philopator Philadelphos (BC 160/159 – BC 150)….……....…...22 3.7 Mithradates V. Euergetes (BC 150 – BC 120)...………...….………..…...….......23
vi
4. MITHRADATES VI. EUPATOR DIONYSOS (BC 120 – BC 63)…..………….…...…...25 5. PONTUS AND ROMAN STRUGGLE IN ASIA MINOR...…………………..….……....34
5.1 Mithradates-Roman Wars ‘’From The Rise of Pontus to Peace in Asia Minor’’ (BC 89 – BC 85)………………………………………………………………………39
5.2 Mithradates-Roman Wars ‘’Murena and the struggle of Mithradates’’ (BC 83 – BC 81)...........................................................................................................................54
5.3 Mithradates –Roman Wars ‘’Lucullus’’ Pontus - Armenia Expeditions and Roman rule in Asia Minor’’ (BC 74 – BC 67)……………………………………………….60
5.4 Mithradates – Roman Wars ‘’Pompeius’ expedition to Asia Minor and betrayal to Mithradates’’ (BC 66 – BC 63)….………………………….………………………..81
6. II. PHARNACES – CAESAR WAR AND THE END OF THE DYNASTY………..…...95
7. CONCLUSION.…………………………………….………………………………...……99
8. REFERENCES..………….…………………………...……..……………………………102
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Southeastern Black Sea, 1 cm=300 stadia/60km/38 miles…………………………...7
Figure 2 Lands Ruled by King Mithradates III of Pontus …………………..…………...…...18 Figure 3 Pontus Region ………………………………………………………………………28
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to share the collected information about the political history of the Pontus Dynasty, which ruled over wide geography by establishing the Kingdom of Pontus, and to explain the struggles between them and the Roman Republic, which wanted to become the ruler of Asia Minor. Although much research has been done on the kingdom of Pontus, many of the works written have never been more than a biography of VI. Mithradates Eupator who provides to the Kingdom its best and glorious days. This study aims to eliminate deficiencies in this field by transparently presenting the activities and strategies of the Pontus Dynasty from its foundation to its rise and even its fall. At the same time, this article mentions how the Kingdom of Pontus rised from a small kingdom in Asia Minor, and which diplomatic, political, and even vital decisions were taken in the war with the Roman Republic. In the research, which began with the origin of the name Pontus, the geography of the region was examined and the establishment of the dynasty within the political conjuncture of Asia Minor was described and then the wars with the Roman Republic were mentioned.
With this study, the works of ancient and modern historians have been studied with great care, synthesized as a result of deep research and presented to readers. During the times when the kingdom of Pontus reigned, there are not many sources other than Hellenistic and Roman historians on the history of the dynasty and relations with the Roman Republic. The reason for this is that Mithradates Eupator, considered one of the greatest enemies of the Romans, opposed Rome's policies in Asia Minor, and therefore many works belonging to them were destroyed by the Romans after the fall of the Kingdom of Pontus. Because of that, the history of the Kingdom of Pontus
2
is learned by Hellenistic and Roman historians. In their works, the historians of antiquity, who describe the political conjuncture of the Kingdom of Pontus untidily, had narrated the same subjects with different points of views. That's why this disorganized pile of information is handled with great caution and meticulousness. For this reason, I have studied the works of ancient writers using the cross-reading method, reaching a consensus in accordance with the views of modern historians. As a result of my research, I tried to present the Kingdom of Pontus, which has an important place in the history of Asia Minor, fluently through dynastic relations and Roman relations. Therefore, attention was paid to this work in terms of the way it was narrated, great rigour and care were given to the sentences.
3
2. ORIGIN AND ETHNIC TERMINOLOGY OF THE NAME PONTUS
The term "Pontus" is a historical name used to describe a body of water that we know as the Black Sea in antiquity. When ancient sources are examined, the word "Pontus" first appears in Homer's epic poem "The Iliad" (Homeros, The Iliad.I). In Homer's work, he used Pontus in the sense of the open sea as well as the sea (Homeros, The Iliad.I). But since he did not provide any information about the Black Sea in his work, there is no information about how he called Pontus (Moorhouse, 1940). Other ancient writers used Pontus only in the sense of the sea.
In the ethnic terminology of the nomenclature, there is debate about whether the term Pontus is in the Hellenic language. As a result of research, it is believed that the term Pontus comes from the same root as the Latin words "Pons (bridge)" or "Bent", while its relationship with the Hellenic language probably was adapted to the Hellenic language from the Thracia or Armenia languages residing in the Black Sea basin (Arslan, 2007, p. 3). According to Moorhouse (Moorhouse, 1940, p. 127), because the Black Sea is often stormy and difficult to cross, Phrygians preferred to pass through the Strait of Istanbul, because it was easier, so he thinks that this use may have passed into the Hellenic language in this way. In this regard, it is believed that the main meaning of the word Pontus is the road or Sea Road on the sea, which over time has acquired the meaning of the sea (Moorhouse, 1940, p. 126; Arslan, 2006, s. 78). Because similarly, the names Hellespont (Dardanelles Strait) and Propontis (Marmara Sea) should also be used as ‘Road to Hellas’ and ‘Marmara Road’. For this reason, it is thought that the term Pontus may also have acquired the meaning of the road or sea over the sea (Moorhouse, 1940, p. 123).
4
In addition to Pontus in some ancient artefacts, this region was called Pontus Axenus/Aksenos and Pontus Euxinos, respectively. According to Strabo of Amaseia (Strabon, VII, p. 3.6), ancient historians have used the term Pontus Axenus/Aksenos, which means the sea that does not like guests because of the stormy seas that the Black Sea is subject to, heavy snowfalls, and the brutal slaughter of strangers encountered by the wild tribes that live here. But Moorhouse (Moorhouse, 1940, p. 125), claimed that the term Aksenos, meaning dislike of guests in the Hellenic language, was derived from the Persian word "Axsaena", meaning dark and black. The definition was changed after the Greeks came to this area frequently for trade reasons, and ‘Pontus Euxinos’, meaning guest-loving sea, was used. In addition, Dionysios, one of the ancient poets, described Pontus as a black sea of glitter in his work Perieges (Lightfoot, 2004). The reason ancient writers used this adjective as ‘Black’ Sea was that some of its shores were black sand, severe storms and terrible waves. In fact, this sea, which is not very wide and surrounded by mountains on all sides, appears blackened by clouds brought by the North and West winds (Andreasyan, 1969, pp. 2-5).
After the Hellenes came to Pontus by making ships resistant to severe waves, safe travels continued to increase, and thanks to this, the process of colonization of the Black Sea for commercial purposes began (Carpenter, 1948). Thus, the Hellenes, who seized the natural riches of the Pontus region, became rich thanks to the merchant ships that flocked to the region, therefore replacing the term" the sea that dislikes guests "Aksenos with Pontus Euksenos, which means "guest-loving sea" (Strabon, VII, p. 3.6). Later, Herodotus of Halicarnassus, one of the ancient writers (Heredotus, IV, p. 8), used the term Pontus for people living in Pontus, except for the meaning of the sea, from which the term Pontus first appeared as a nomenclature of the region.
5
After that, Xenophon, one of the ancient writers (Ksenephon, Anabasis 2.2), used the term Pontus in the form of those who belonged to Pontus and lived in Pontus. Finally, Strabo of Amaseia (Strabon, XII, p. 1.4) After the wars of Mithridates, the region was called the Kingdom of Pontus by Roman historians (Strabon, XII, p. 3.33; Arslan, 2007, p. 12). 2.1 Geography of Pontus In Antique Artefacts
Pontus region, starting from the Halys (Kızılırmak) River in the north of Anatolian geography, east-west axis until Colchis (Strabon, XII, pp. 3.17-18), is a challenging geographical region with deep valleys and long rivers, surrounded by large mountain ranges running parallel to the sea in the northern and southern parts, where transportation can only be provided by narrow passages from the coastal part to the interior. Strabo, a historian of amaseia (Amasya), described the Pontus region in his work called Geographika (Strabon, XII, p. 1.2) as follows.
If a person opens from Propontis (Sea of Marmara) to Eukseinos (Black Sea) to the sea, the parts adjacent to Byzantium on the left side (these belong to the Thracians, and this is called the "parts on the left side" of Pontus. The region up to the Halys River (Kızılırmak) belongs to the Paphlagonians and the region after that belongs to the people of Pontus Cappadocia. Finally, the area up to Colchis also belongs to the peoples who came after them. All these are called "parts on the right side" of Pontus.
The southwestern border of the Pontus region was formed by the northern banks of the Kappadoks (Delice Creek) and Skylaks (Cekek) Rivers, which are tributaries of the Halys River, inhabited by Indigenous people called Trocmii from the Galat tribes (Strabon, XII, pp. 3.17-18). To the southeast of the region is Armenia Minor along with Paryadres (Pontus Mountains) (Strabon, XII, p. 1.2). It has natural
6
ports providing maritime trade such as Sinope (Sinop), Amisos (Samsun), Cerasus (Giresun) in the coastal part (Strabon, XII, p. 3.11). In addition, it is available in inner cities with natural river basin with castles consisting of steep rocks (Strabon, XI, p. 3.39). Among them are the castles of Amaseia, Cabeira and Sinoria. When the topography of the region was examined, the provision of transportation between the Black Sea coast and the interior by narrow passages led to the fact that trade roads took place on the North and south axis. There are also high mountains covered with green trees, except for many lakes, deep river valleys and rivers.
The Pontus region had become a place frequented by many civilizations on the historical scene. This was because it was quite rich in agricultural and animal production, with its endless plains and plateaus (Arslan, 2007, p. 17). However, agricultural activities developed while quality timbers were used in the construction of ships and furniture. For this reason, the Pontus region, which stood out for its quality timber, vast plains, various mineral basins and commercial activities, was invaded by many kingdoms and Empires. The first and large-scale domination in the region was achieved by the Hittites. Pontus region, which was the Hittite territory between 1700 and 1200 BC, remained under the partial rule of the Phrygians between 1200-700 BC. In 676 BC, it was invaded by the Cimmerians, who came to the region through the Caucasus, and then it was captured by the Ancient Persian Empire. The Hellenic people, who talk a lot about the wealth of the region, as Socrates told Plato, had established Hellenic cities on the Black Sea coast, "like frogs around the lake" (Öztürk, 2011, p. 314).
7
Figure 1
‘’Southeastern Black Sea, 1 cm=300 stadia/60km/38 miles’’
Note. Taken from (Arslan, Mithradates IV Eupotor Roma'nın Büyük Düşmanı, Eskiçağ Tarih Dizisi, 2007)
Looking at the geology of the Pontus region, it is understood that there are different types of mineral-bearing ores and metalworking in this region and that it has been processed and used by some civilizations since the first age (Foss, 1988, p. 3). In addition to this, products of commercial value such as perfumes, aromatic gums, Wormwood, roe deer, honey and wax were also supplied from the Pontus Coast (Magie, 1950, p. 182). Moreover, the Black Sea coast is covered with olive trees and was very productive in terms of sea and fishing (Öztürk, 2011, p. 314).
2.2 Hellenistic Period In Asia Minor
Alexander the Great, who arrived in Asia Minor in 334 BC, freed the Hellenes from Persian hegemony and liberated many cities (Diodorus, XV, pp. 4-8). That is why Alexander The Great, who was well-loved by the peoples of Asia Minor, played a major role in the Hellenization of Asia Minor (Woodlock, 2014, p. 27). Alexander,
8
who placed Greek colonists in the regions he conquered, brought many innovations from education to art to Asia Minor (Woodlock, 2014, p. 27). He also appointed his generals as governors to the cities of Asia Minor that he captured, and during his reign, the Greek language became one of the languages used in Asia Minor. After Alexander's conquests, Persian hegemony in Asia Minor ended, the borders of the Empire expanded to India, and Alexander the Great became the ruler of the East (Plutarch, LVII, p. 1). Eastern civilization, consisting of many kingdoms and tribal states, met the Hellenic world with Alexander's conquests and began to live together. However, it was inevitable that nations would converge and exchange cultures with each other. In fact, that was Alexander's intention. As a matter of fact, Alexander the Great took an important step to realize his dream of a multinational Empire in Asia Minor by marrying the entire state aristocracy, especially the generals in his army, to women of Persian origin (Mitchell, 2004, s. 141). He wanted to unite the multinational infrastructure of the East in single sovereignty. In addition, he wanted the kingdoms and tribal states of the East that he had captured to accept Alexander's Empire. By this way, he will gain divine status and become a World Conqueror (Mitchell, 2004, s. 141). However, Asia Minor was the most affected region from this situation. Because the west of Asia Minor was under the influence of Greek culture, and there were cities under the influence of Persian culture in the Eastern part of the region (Mitchell, 2004, s. 142). After that, many kingdoms were established in Asia Minor, while Persianism and Greeks caused a bitter struggle in Asia Minor for a long time (Yarshater, 2000, p. 111). For example, the Attalos dynasty established in Pergamon and the Pontus dynasty in Amasya became two different faces of the common society that Alexander wanted to establish (Mitchell, 2004, s. 143). Both the Pro-Hellenic Attalos Dynasty and the Pontus dynasty of Persian origin wanted to have a say in the rule of Asia
9
Minor, although the East and West were two different poles. Thus, many kingdoms large and small were established in Asia Minor, and each kingdom had to adopt Greek and Persian cultures (Acun, 1999, pp. 22-23). In this way, they engaged in a fierce struggle in Asia Minor to prevail. Thanks to the mixed culture of this Asia Minor, the societies familiar with both Persian and Greek culture became a single whole in Asia Minor that could not be separated from each other. That is why the Pontus Dynasty was able to create a long-standing Kingdom in Asia Minor by preserving both Persian and Greek culture.
After Alexander died in 323 BC, The Empire was divided into parts, as there was no adult crown prince to ensure the continuation of the Empire, and the regions he conquered were divided among his generals and divided into Imperial parts (Diodorus, XVIII, p. 1). Therefore, the satrapies that Alexander obtained by defeating the Persians in Asia Minor were now ruled by his generals. Thus, Cilicia was given to Philotas, Pamphylia, Lycia and Phrygia Antigonos, Caria to Asander, Lydia to Menander, Thrace to Lysimakhos, Hellespont to Leonnatus, and finally the lands of Paphlagonia and Cappadocia to Eumenes (Diodorus, XVIII, p. 3). Although some of Alexander's generals were happy with this sharing, some of them were not happy at all and preferred the war, leading to the start of a power struggle between each other. This incident, known in history as the Battle of the Diadochi, was the subject of battles that came to resurrect the Empire of Alexander the Great. Antigonos, one of Alexander the Great's generals, had long prevailed in the war between the Diadochs and wanted to revive the Empire that Alexander had established by trying to eliminate his other opponents (Diodorus, XVIV, p. 55.4). However, Ptolemaios, Lysimachus, and Cassander fought him, opposing Antigonos ' expansionist policy. Thus, with the Union of the armies of Ptolemaios, Lysimachus and Cassander and even Seleucus, a
10
great battle took place in the Battle of Ipsos, Antigonos was defeated and killed (Justinus, XV, pp. 4.21-22). But the death of Antigonus did not completely end the war between the Diadochi, and due to the conflict over the sharing of Antigonos ' treasures, they were again engaged in a war with each other (Justinus, XV, pp. 23-24-25). When the wars in Asia Minor ended, many kingdoms declared their independence in Asia Minor thanks to generals who weakened and weakened each other. One of them is the Kingdom of Pontus, founded by Mithradates Ktistes, the King of Pontus, who is undoubtedly known by the nickname of the founder (Strabon, XII, p. 3.41).
2.3 Origin and Foundation of the Pontus Dynasty
The Kingdom of Pontus, one of the Ancient Kingdoms, was founded by the Mithradates dynasty of Persian origin (Laertius, 1972, p. 25; Polybius, V, p. 43.2). Polybius of Megalopolis, one of the ancient writers (Polybius, V, p. 43.2), mentioned that the Kingdom of Pontus was ruled by the Mithridates dynasty, which was of Persian origin. Also in his work, he said that the dynasty's lineage was based on one of the seven founding families of the Persian Empire and mentioned the lands under the dynasty's rule were bestowed by Dareios I. (Appian, Mithradates, p. 9; Polybius, V, p. 43.2). According to Diodorus of Sicily (Diodorus, XX, p. 111.4), Mithradates II, father of Mithradates Ktistes who founded the Kingdom of Pontus, dominated the kiosk (Gemlik) of Mysia region and the Myrlea region for about thirty-five years during the war between the Diodochs.
Furthermore, he mentioned that II. Mithradates sided with Antigonos I Monophthalmus in the war between the Diodochs, who were engaged in a struggle for dominance in Asia Minor, and that they fought together (Diodorus, XVIV, p. 40.2). Although there is not enough information about his life, information about his death is
11
clear. Because Antigonus I Monophthalmus considered that he was in a relationship with Cassander, one of his greatest rivals, he had II. Mithradates killed near Cius (Gemlik) in 302 BC, when he was 84 years old (Diodorus, XVI, s. 90.2). Thus, after the assassination of Mithradates II, Mithradates III, also known as Mithridates I Ktistes, succeeded his father. However, Mithradates Ktistes, like his father, was wanted to be killed by Antigonos I Monophthalmus, but this attempt was prevented by Antigonos ' son Demetrius Poliorketes (Appian, Mithradates, p. 9). Because Demetrius, aware of his father's plans, did not want his friend Mithradates, with whom he fought, to be killed, and warned him to escape (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, p. 4.3). After Demetrius warned him, Mithradates Ktistes escaped to Paphlagonia with his trusted soldiers and saved his life (Plutarch, Life of Demetrius, p. 4.3; Arslan, 2007, p. 49). Mithradates Ktistes, who came to Paphlagonia, came to the city of Cimiata, located at the foot of the Olgassys (Ilgaz) Mountains in Paphylagonia, and by using his influence, he laid the foundation of the Kingdom of Pontus (Strabon, XII, p. 3.41).
In 301 BC, with the murder of Antigonos Monophthalmos at the Battle of Ipsos (Justinus, XV, pp. 4.21-22; Arslan, 2007, pp. 50-51), the war between the Diodochs in Asia Minor had continued unabated. If any of the generals were killed in the war between the Diodochs, another immediately moved to seize the territory he ruled. For this reason, after the death of Antigonos, Nikator, King of Seleucus who wanted to take over Cappadocia, had appointed Diodorus, who was one of the generals of his army, for capturing Cappadocia. But Diodorus was severely defeated by Mithradates Ktistes (Arslan, 2007, pp. 50-51). this situation showed the power of Mithridates Ktistes in the region, so the Kingdom of Pontus was established (Bosworth & Wheatley, 1998, p. 159; McGing, 1986b, p. 246; Arslan, 2007, pp. 50-51).
12
3. KINGDOM OF PONTUS (301 BC-68 BC)
In 301 BC, Mithradates I Ktistes (founder) declared his independence and established the Kingdom of Pontus, including the regions of Cappadocia and Pontus (Bosworth & Wheatley, 1998, pp. 155-162). However, this nomenclature was not used at the time of the founding of the Kingdom of Pontus. Because the Kingdom of Pontus was given different names by modern historians (Magie, 1950, p. 177), Because when examined the works of ancient writers, none of the historians who lived in this period used the expression of the Kingdom of Pontus in their work. However, the coins minted by Mithradates Ktistes do not contain the expression of the Kingdom of Pontos. This nomenclature was mostly used by Roman historians and Hellenistic historians, and in ancient works, the phrase ‘Kingdom of Pontus’ was used in the sense of a kingdom established in the Pontus region.
The Persian Empire once ruled in the Pontus region, where Mithradates Ktistes founded his own kingdom. Cities ruled by Satraps were later enriched by Greek colonists increasing trade in this region, but for a long time it was not dominated by any kingdom or state. Therefore, looking at the history of the Pontus region, two important events show that major changes have taken place in the region. The first was the beginning of Greek colonization, and the second was the Persian aristocrats and Persian religious belief who settled in the region (Yarshater, 2000, p. 111). Because the first goal of the Kings, who wanted to establish a strong Kingdom in the region, was to win the sympathy of the indigenous people who adopted the Greek and Persian cultures with a deep-rooted past. Therefore, Mithradates Ktistes based his origins on the Achaemenids and accepted the official language as Greek to unite everyone around him. We can understand that he achieved this goal and be the ruler of the region because he printed coins in his name, which is one of the greatest indicators
13
of independence at the time (Arslan, 2007, p. 54). When archaeological sources were examined, the Pontus Kings always used the moon and star, one of the symbols of the Persian Empire, as well as the Zeus motif on the coins they used (Wroth, 1889, s. XXIII).
3.1 Mithradates I. Ktistes (BC 302 – BC 266)
Mithradates I Ktistes, who came to the region of Paphlagonia and established himself a military base in Kimiata (Strabon, XII, p. 3.41) took advantage of the authority gap caused by the struggle between the Diadochs, expanded their territory to the Iris (Yeşilırmak) Basin and eventually took over Amaseia and its surroundings. Mithradates Ktistes, who made Amaseia the capital, organized raids in the region of Paphylagonia in the years he ruled, and eventually began to use the title of King of Pontus (Magie, 1950, p. 189). Because, inspired by Alexander's Staters, he printed gold coins that were a symbol of independence and his kingdom. The coins have the head of Athena on the obverse and the symbols of King Mithradates on the reverse, along with the figure of Nike standing (Arslan, 2007, pp. 54-55).
Meanwhile, fighting between the Diadochs continued in Asia Minor. Lysimakhos, who had the support of Phrygia and Paphylagonia, was defeated and killed at the Battle of Kurupedion in February 281 BC by his former ally Seleucus I Nikator, who also had influence in the region. Following the battle, Seleucus commissioned his generals to capture the area of Phrygia and Paphylagonia. Aphrodisios, one of Seleucus ' generals, had captured the cities of Phyrgia without encountering any resistance. But the northern cities of the Paphylogina region resisted Seleucus by allying with the name ‘Northern League’ because of their loyalty to Lysimakhos. Against Seleucus, who plundered the region despite resistance, the
14
Heracleians asked for help from the surrounding cities and Mithridates Ktistes (Magie, 1950, p. 189) It is believed that Mithridates Ktistes, acting on this, defeated Diodorus, one of the Seleucid generals in Cappadocia, and declared his kingdom in the region (McGing, 1986b, p. 19 dn.39). In the following period, Mithradates Ktistes, who was continuing his efforts to expand, entered into a struggle with the Heracleians for control of the city of Amastrist (Amasra). The city was ruled by Eumenes, who had previously been appointed by Diadokh Lysimakhos. Against the Heracleians, who wanted to buy the city with money, Eumenes chose to give Amatrist to Ariobarzanes, son of Mithradates Ktistes, rather than give it to Heracleians for money (Arslan, 2007, p. 31) Thus, The King of Pontus, Mithradates Ktistes, who had a port in the region of Paphylagonia that could conduct his commercial activities, consolidated his influence in the region. Moreover, the king, who reinforced his army during this period, used the Galat tribes as mercenaries in battles conducted in Paphlagonia. By 266 BC, he was succeeded by his son Ariobarzanes.
3.2 Ariobarzanes (BC 266 – BC 250)
Little is known about the years when Ariborzanes' ruled the kingdom. His father Mithradates Ktistes shared his power and the last years of his reign with his son Ariobarzanes (Bagnall, 2013, p. 4544). Ariobarzanes, on the other hand, continued the expansion of the kingdom, which he inherited from his father. In the early days of his reign, The King, who was supported by the Galatians, broke up relations with the Galatians in the later period. Also during this period, Amastrist (Amasra), which would become an important trading centre for the Kingdom of Pontus, was captured. Ariobarzanes, who died in 250 BC, was succeeded by his son II. Mithradates.
15
3.3 II. Mithradates (BC 250 – BC 220)
Upon the unexpected death of King Ariobarzanes, his young son Mithradates II ascended to the throne of the Kingdom of Pontus. Knowing that the young Mithradates' inexperience was an opportunity, the Galatians took advantage of the situation and moved to invade the Pontus region. Mithradates II, on the other hand, barely saved his life, suffering heavy losses. The king, who retreated as far as amisos, was surrounded by Galatian troops (McGing, 1986b, p. 20; Arslan, 2007, p. 58). After that, people of Herakleia Pontike, who had heard about the siege, sent supplies by sea to the besieged city of Amisos and prevented the city from falling. IAfter recovering from the difficult situation in which Mithradates II fell, the Galatians, who learned about the help of the people of Heraklia Pontike, lifted the siege of Amisos and marched to the city of Heraklia Pontike and sieged it (Arslan, 2007, p. XXIV). The Galatians, who besieged the city, destroyed the city and forced the people of Herakleia to peace. Then the elders of the city offered Galatians’ money to lift the siege with the messenger they had sent. Accordingly, the city was liberated from the siege of Galatians on the condition that 5000 gold coins were given to the Galatian army and 200 gold to each Galatian chief (Arslan, 2007, p. 58).
During the reign of Mithradates II, the fame of the Kingdom of Pontus reached many kingdoms all over Anatolia, even the islands and Hellas. A major earthquake occurred in Rhodes on 227/226 BC. The devastation of this earthquake has been so great that the Colossus statue and the city walls have been badly damaged (Polybius, V, p. 88.1). Including the King of Pontus Mithradates II, many Hellenistic kingdom sent their aid to the Rhodes in order to compensate for the destruction caused by the earthquake (Polybius, V, p. 90.1). On this occasion, the name of the Kingdom of Pontus became known in the region, and the generosity of Mithradates II reached as
16
far as the shores of Hellas. However, the Kingdom of Pontus had an important place in Anatolian history thanks to the marriage of King Mithradates II and Laodike, daughter of Seleukos king Antiochos II Theos (Arslan, 2007, p. 59). Accordingly, the political power brought by this marriage undoubtedly brought the Kingdom of Pontus to the same level as other Hellenistic forces in Anatolia (Gabelko, 2009, s. 50). With this marriage, it has been known that Antiochus has given the Phrygia region as a dowry to Mithradates II. (Magie, 1950, p. 190). However, with the death of King Antiochos II Theos, there was a struggle for the sovereignty and throne of the region between his two sons Seleucus II Kallinikos and Antiochos II Hieraks. Antiochus Hieraks in order to strengthen his position, he married Laodike, daughter of Mithradates II. (Polybius, V, pp. 43.1-3). Antiochus Hieraks ' alliance with Mithradates II in his war against his brother worked out well, and he managed to defeat his brother near Ankyra (Ankara) in 240/239 BC. But after this war, relations between him and Antiochus Hieraks, son-in-law of Mithradates II, must have deteriorated, so the king tried to get along well with both of them, rather than taking sides between both brothers (Arslan, 2007, p. 60).
In the last years of the reign of Mithradates II, The Kingdom of Pontus was now definitively recognized as an Asian power in Asia Minor (Magie, 1950, p. 190). The King tried to besiege the city of Sinope (Sinop), which was both a commercial and fortified castle at that time. But the people of Sinope must have realized that they could not cope with Mithradates, so they asked the Rhodians and Kos for help (Polybius, IV, s. 56.1-5). Because the city of Sinope was greatly concerned by the siege of the city by Mithradates II (Polybius, IV, s. 56.7-8). However, Mithradates II was unable to capture the city as a result of the great help sent by the Rhodians
17
(McGing, 1986b, p. 23). But he continued his policy of expanding the borders, and many cities were captured on the southern shores of Pontus Euksenos.
It is known that Mithradates II minted coins in his name during his reign. On the front of these coins is a bust of Athena bearing a helmet, while on the back is a Legand of King Mithradates II with a palm leaf in his hand (Arslan, 2007, p. 62). On the death of II Mithradates in 220 BC, he was replaced by his son Mithradates III.
3.4 III. Mithradates (BC 220 – BC 197)
Mithradates III, who took the throne in 220 BC, ruled for about twenty-three years. There is no information about him in ancient sources. However, he is known to have minted coins in his name during his reign. On the front side of these coins, King Mithradates III was depicted as an old man with short hair, a beard, and on the backside, there was an image of Zeus holding an eagle alongside the symbols of Crescent and star (Erciyas, 2001, p. 166). The king, who is known to have died in 197 BC, was succeeded by his son Pharnaces I.
18
Figure 2
‘’Lands Ruled by King Mithradates III of Pontus’’
Note. Taken from Kınacı, M. (2016). Mithradates Hanedanlığı'nda I. Pharnakes Dönemi. Ankara.
3.5 I. Pharnakes (BC 197 – BC 160/159)
After Pharnakes I ascended the throne, the Kingdom of Pontus was now a state with an international voice. One of the reasons for this was undoubtedly the more aggressive and ambitious politics that Pharnakes pursued, unlike the Kings before him (Polybius, XXVII, s. 17). Because the policy pursued by the reigning kings until now consisted only of capturing neighbouring regions and continuing their existence. The captured lands, on the other hand, belonged neither to a kingdom nor a state, and there was even no struggle with great power or a kingdom for them (Magie, 1950, p. 190). But during Pharnakes' reign, he contacted not only the neighbouring kingdoms but almost the entire coast of Pontus Euksenos (Arslan, 2007, p. 65). Contact with many
19
states began and friendly relations were established. The first contact of the kingdom of Pontus with the Roman Republic occurred during this period.
Examining the coins minted by Pharnakes, who is believed to have ascended the throne of the Kingdom of Pontus between 200 and 197 BC, it is understood that he has a very talented and overly ambitious personality, although he is considered to be portrayed as someone with a weak decency and mental retardation (Magie, 1950, pp. 190-191). It is known that the king, who is known to have a brother named Mithradates and a sister named Laodike, married Nysa, daughter of Seleucid king Antiochus III, in order to establish diplomatic relations with the Seleucid kingdom, like his predecessors (Livius, XXXVII, p. 53.13).
The first city that Pharnakes captured during his reign was Sinope, located on the coast of Pontus Euksenos in the region of Paphylagonia. Sinope, besides being a military naval base, was also one of the most important ports in the region for controlling commercial activities (Strabon, XII, p. 3.11). But the city, previously besieged by Mithradates II, was receiving support from Rhodes and the island of Kos. Aware of this, Pharnakes captured the city in a sudden raid (Polybius, XXIII, s. 9.2-3; Arslan, 2007, p. 64). After the capture of Sinope, Cotyora (Ordu) and Cerasus (Giresun), which were considered colonies attached to the city, were captured (Magie, 1950, p. 191). Pharnakes thus extended the borders of the Kingdom of Pontus to Amastris in the West and Cerasus in the East. In addition, the king, who moved the capital of the kingdom from Amaseia to Sinope (Arslan, 2007, p. 64). established a city named after him, and placed the people of Cerasus in this city called Pharnacia (Strabon, XII, p. 3.17) Thus, by completely controlling the coasts of Paphlagonia, it also dominated a large trade network. Pharnakes, with the power he gained economically, both equipped his army and continued his policy of expansion.
20
By 188 BC, many kingdoms in Asia Minor had entered into a struggle for dominance between each other decisively. There was The Kingdom of Pergamon, which received the support of the Roman Republic, and on the other hand, the Kingdom of Bithynia had an alliance led by The King of Macedonia V. Philippos and Galatians (Arslan, 2007, p. 63). After long battles, King Eumenes II of Pergamon managed to defeat the Allied army of Bithynia and Galatians at the Battle of Lypedron (Magie, 1950, p. 764.59). After the war, peace talks were held under the leadership of the Romans, and in accordance with the Treaty of Apameia, many regions of Asia Minor came under the rule of the Kingdom of Pergamon (Arslan, 2007, p. 63). Ancient historians do not mention the Kingdom of Pontus and Pharnakes I in any way during this struggle, so we cannot access any information. But this indicates that Pharnakes did not act in accordance with the Apameia agreement. So much so that he sought to establish new alliances in the region and tried to strengthen his army (Kınacı, 2016, pp. 160-161).
After Pharnakes conquered the shores of Pontus Euksenos, he turned his direction to Paphylogonia. Having captured the area, the King obtained many spoils and placed his own people to reside here (Magie, 1950, p. 191). However, by 183 BC, The King began to violate the borders of Cappadocia with his ally, Mithradates, King of lesser Armenia, by increasing his pressure. (Kınacı, 2016, p. 168) In addition, the king, who organized raids on the land of Bithynia, captured the city of Tieium, located on the shore of Euksenos of Pontus, and massacred everyone here (Magie, 1950, p. 191). Because Pharnakes, who had frequent his aggressive policies, agreed with the Galatians and provoked them to harass the Kingdom of Pergamon (Polybius, XXIV, pp. 14.5-6). Eumenes II, ruler of the kingdom of Pergamon, Prusias II, King of Bithynia, and Ariarathes IV, governor of Cappadocia, complained to the Romans
21
about Pharnakes, who were slowly feeling their power in Asia Minor at the time, because of their aggressive attitude and Border harassment (Magie, 1950, p. 191). The Roman envoys decided to establish a commission and invited both sides to calm down. But after a while, they will realize that this is a futile effort that they have ended the meetings (Polybius, XXIV, pp. 14.4-12). After a long conflict, Pharnakes lost the war he fought on three different fronts and sent his envoys to negotiate peace. (Polybius, XXIV, p. 2.1). After three years of war, Pharnakes was forced to accept heavy peace terms. Accordingly, it was decided that Pharnakes would withdraw from the territory of Galatia, which he had previously occupied, and that there would be no interference in this region in any way. The same conditions applied to the region of Cappadocia, and the King was forced to return all prisoners of war and property obtained from this region (Polybius, V, pp. 2.5-9). The Kingdom of Bithynia was given back the castle of Tieium, which Pharnakes had destroyed before the war (Magie, 1950, p. 192). In addition, Pharnakes was asked to pay 900 talents to the winning side in exchange for the loot he captured and was asked to pay 300 talents to Eumenes II as the battle price (Polybius, V, pp. 2.7-9). Pharnakes paid Mithradates, the Satrap of Armenia, 300 talent war reparations for participating in the war alongside him (Polybius, V, p. 2.9). Despite the heavy obligations imposed by the peace agreement, Pharnakes expanded the territory he received from his predecessors and managed to monopolize the Black Sea trade network. Thanks to this, the name of the Kingdom of Pontus has now become recognized in the international arena. As well as the cities and cities he conquered, he also agreed with the cities of Chersonesos and Odessos on the Crimean Peninsula, protecting them from Scythian attacks (Arslan, 2007, p. 65) (Kınacı, 2016, p. 192).
22
Pharnakes is known to have minted coins in his name, like the Kings of Pontus before him. On the front of these coins, which he minted, there is a portrait of the king, and on the back, there is a god with a lightning motif. In addition, during this period, crescent and star symbols were used, and next to it, the symbols of King Pharnakes were included (Arslan, 2007, pp. 66-67).
3.6 Mithradates IV. Philopator Philadelphos (BC 160/159 – BC 150)
After the death of Pharnakes I, the new ruler of the Kingdom of Pontus became Mithradates IV. The King did not pursue the aggressive policies of his predecessor Pharnakes I but pursued a more peaceful and optimistic policy. He made efforts to correct his relationship with the Kingdom of Pergamon and the Roman Republic, where relations in the region were bad (Magie, 1950, p. 194). However, instead of taking advantage of the situation in the war between King Prusias II of Bithynia and King Attalos II of Pergamon, he sent reinforcements, taking part in the side of Attalos II (Polybius, XXXIII, s. 12.1), This move, probably, has been positively received by the Roman Republic because there is an inscription in Hellenic and Latin is found in Rome, dedicated to the alliance of Mithradates IV (Arslan, 2007, p. 67).
Mithradates IV abandoned the policy of marriage maintained with the Seleucid Kingdom, which his predecessors had practised during their reign, and married his sister Laodike. So much so that this showed that Laodike also shared his power with the coins he had minted in his name (McGing, 1986b, p. 109). Mithradates IV supported this opinion by including a portrait of himself and his Queen Laodike on the coins he minted (Arslan, 2007, p. 68).
The King's peaceful policy and preference for marriage also indicate that it may be due to his proxy to Euergetes V Mithradates, who is relatively expected to
23
take the throne after Pharnakes I (Bagnall, 2013, p. 4545). After his ten-year reign, he was replaced by Mithradates Euergetes V.
3.7 Mithradates V. Euergetes (BC 150 – BC 120)
Mithradates V Euergetes returned to the policy of marriage maintained with the Seleucid Kingdom, married Laodike, daughter of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (Arslan, 2007, p. 68). Continuing the peaceful policy carried out by his uncle, he sent a small force to support them in the Third Punic War against the Carthages in 149 BC (Appian, Mithr.10).
During the reign of Mithradates, King Athalos III of Pergamon died and bequeathed his lands to Rome, so the Kingdom of Permagon largely fell into the hands of Rome (Strabon, XIII., p. 4.2). However, Aristonicus, who claimed to be the true heir of Pergamon, rebelled against Rome and declared his independence near Smyrna (İzmir) (Arslan, 2007, p. 69). After three years of fighting, Rome defeated Aristonicus near Stratonikeia (Eskihisar), establishing its first province in Asia Minor, Provincia Asia (Strabon, XIV, p. 1.38). However, Rome distributed some of the Lands of Pergamon, which it captured, to its allies who helped it in the war, thinking that it would be difficult to manage, so the lands of Phrygia and Galatia were also given as a gift to Mithradates V (Appian, Mithr.11; Arslan, 2007, p. 69). Mithradates, who continued his alliance with Rome until the last periods of his reign, began to break down relations with Rome when it became clear that he had attempted to give him the lands of Phrygia and Galatia and distributed bribes (Magie, 1950, p. 194).
During the suppression of the revolt of Aristonicus, King Ariarathes V of Cappadocia died, and in Cappadocia, there had been a struggle for the throne between the King's wife Nysa and her son Ariarathes VI (Arslan, 2007, p. 70). Mithradates V
24
Euergetes, who knew how to turn this situation into an opportunity, abandoned his peaceful policy after the decadence of Rome and invaded Cappadocia (Appian, Mithr.10). But instead of completely occupying the region, the King retreated from the occupied territories by marrying his eldest daughter Laodike to King Ariarathes IV of Cappadocia in order to establish permanent rule in Cappadocia (Magie, 1950, p. 194) (Arslan, 2007, pp. 70-71). Thus, King Mithradates made it easier for VI Mithradates Eupator, who will take the throne after him, to have a say in the region with this marriage policy that he has implemented (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 37.4.4).
By 120 BC King V of Pontus Mithradates was assassinated in Sinope by his own men (Strabon, X, p. 4.10). Like his predecessors, he would have further enhanced his relations with the Hellenic civilizations, which after his death a statue dedicated to King Mithradates V was erected on Delos Island (Arslan, 2007, p. 71). So much so that Strabo, who was in Crete after murdering of the previous king, told that his friend General Dorylaus, who learned about the situation after the news of Mithradates ' death reached Crete, was very concerned about that (Strabon, X, p. 4.10). Undoubtedly, this indicates that Mithradates V was a king recognized and loved by the Hellenic civilizations. After his death, he was replaced by his son Mithradates VI Eupator.
25
4. MITHRADATES VI. EUPATOR DIONYSOS (BC 120 – BC 63)
Ancient writers have mentioned many stories about the birth of Mithradates Eupator. According to Justinus, in the year Mithradates was born, a comet was seen in the sky, which suppressed the sun with its light for seventy days after another (Justinus, XXXVII, pp. 1-6). According to Plutarch, when Mithradates was still an infant, Lightning fell near him, resulting in a scar on the King's forehead that he covered with his hair (Plutarch, Moralia, VII.624). But these birth stories show that on the occasion of these stories, The King's Persian origins were emphasized and even tried to prove that he was the successor of Alexander the Great (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 8). Because the symbols of stars and Lightning were used as a legend of the royal family in Persian traditions, it was believed that cosmic power, which came from the sky, can dominate the world (Bagnall, 2013, pp. 325-328-444). In addition, the story of lightning was an ancient symbol of faith that arose when Alexander the Great had a dream about lightning falling into his mother Olympia's womb (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 8).
After Mithradates V Euergetes was assassinated by his own men, the Kingdom of Pontus was ruled by Laodike for a short time (Strabon, X, p. 4.10). Laodik the Queen of Seleukos, on the other hand, tried to kill Mithradates Eupator many times in order to retain power (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 3). Aware of the Queen's plans, Mithradates injected the duck's blood into his body using the natural immunity of the ducks to protect himself from poisoning, so that he could use it as an antidote in his body (Plinius, XXV.3; Justinus, XXXVII, pp. 2.6-9). And when his enemies realized that they would not be able to kill him with poison, they tried to kill him many times using various weapons, but they did not succeed. Instead of facing the conspiracy against him, Mithradates wandered through the forests and hide by not staying under
26
the same roof every night. In this way, he got rid of the conspirators who wanted to kill him, giving himself to constant hunting, making his body quite durable (Justinus, XXXVII, pp. 2.7-8; Arslan, 2007, pp. 78-79);. This also made it clear that Mithradates continued to adhere to Persian traditions. Because according to the Legends, which are often found in ancient sources, the Persian kings spent a period of their youth far away and got used to wildlife, spending their days hunting, making their bodies ready for all kinds of difficult situations (McGing, 1986b, p. 44.8).
Mithradates Eupator, acting to reclaim the throne of the Kingdom of Pontus, of which he was the legal heir, overthrew the ruling Seleucid Queen Laodike and imprisoned her (Appian, XII, p. 112). But then he killed his mother, the Seleucid Queen Laodike, and his brother, Mithradates Chrestos, to keep absolute power in his own hands (Appian, XII, p. 112; Arslan, 2007, p. 79), and he married his sister Laodike (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 11). Thus, King Mithradates Eupator, who sat on the throne of the Kingdom of Pontus, gradually began to be recognized in foreign policy (Strabon, X, p. 4.10). Consolidating his rule from good to Good, The Young Mithradates carried out his political thinking like his predecessors I Pharnakes and chose the path of expanding them, rather than protecting the existing lands (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 3.1) For that Mithradates, in order to make his kingdom an effective power in the Black Sea and Asia Minor, first eliminated the shortcomings of his army and put them through strict training (Arslan, 2007, p. 80). According to ancient writers, Mithradates ' first known attempt was towards the North, and when Chersonesus and the Kingdom of Bosphorus, one of the coastal cities of the Crimean Peninsula located north of Pontus Euksenos, asked for his help, Mithradates sent Diophantus, one of his commanders, to the region (Strabon, XII, p. 4.3; Arslan, 2007, p. 81). Because in the past, the inhabitants of the city, who were subjected to intense
27
pressure from the Scythians, asked Pharnakes I to protect them from Scythians (Arslan, 2007, p. 65). Almost half a century later, the local people, who were again subjected to the same pressures, this time asked King Mithradates for help and declared him the protector of the region (Strabon, XII, p. 4.3). Diophantus of Pontus, who came to Bosphorus with his army, won a great victory here against the Scythians, who had not previously been defeated (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 3.2) (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 11) Thus, Mithradates, who had captured the Crimean lands, also took control of the north of Pontus Euksenos (Magie, 1950, p. 195) ve and he was the first king to erect a monument to victory over the Scythians (Arslan, 2007, p. 82).
After the great victory over the Scythians, Mithradates turned to the East (Magie, 1950, pp. 195-196). Mithradates extended his rule from Pharnacia to Trapezus and even Colchis, starting in the East, where he declared himself Ruler of the region (Strabon, XII, p. 3.28 c555). Admittedly, the conquest of these regions made a great economic contribution to the Kingdom of Pontus. Because this region, mostly surrounded by steep mountains, had rich silver and iron mines (Magie, 1950, p. 196). So much so that Mithradates is said to have built seventy-five forts in order to preserve all the spoils he obtained in the region (Strabon, XII, p. 3.28 c555). Apart from the economic income of the spoils in question, it was easy to establish a navy with durable logs obtained from the Colchis region, while the metal obtained from the mines produced thick armor and various weapons (Magie, 1950, p. 196). Thus, Mithradates took over the entire region as far as Armenia (Strabon, XII, p. 3.1).
28
Figure 3
‘’Pontus Region’’
Note. accessed 07 May 2020 www.wikiwand.com/en/Pontus_(region)
After capturing the treasure of the East, Mithradates secretly left his kingdom in disguise to prepare for the Asia Minor expedition and explored the west of Asia Minor (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 37.3). Mithradates, who made observations during his journey, wandered from city to city and had detailed knowledge of Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, p. 88). He even devised a plan to lure the indigenous people to his side in the Great War against Rome, just like the conquest of the Crimean Peninsula, by presenting himself as the Savior of the Hellenes, he thought that the region could be prepared for a national struggle against foreign invaders (Magie, 1950, p. 196). After observing the Kingdom of Bithynia and obtaining the necessary information, the King returned to his land where he learned that his Queen Laodike had given him a son (Justinus, XXXVII, pp. 37.5-6). But when Mithradates learned the truth from the servants, he learned that Laodike had actually cheated on his king and wanted to
29
poison him by plotting against him, and he gave the necessary punishment to her (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 37.8; Arslan, 2007, p. 89).
By 96/95 BC, Mithradates signed alliance agreements to establish friendly relations with the major powers in the region, in addition to his policy of expansion in Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, p. 92). For this reason, he married his younger daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes I, King of Armenia (McGing, 1986b, p. 81). But the region's vibrant political atmosphere has led Rome to turn its attention here. The Romans demanded from Mithradates that the king of Scythia rule again on the Crimean Peninsula (Arslan, 2007, p. 92). However, Mithradates, continuing his actions that would create a cause of war for the Romans, invaded Paphlogonia with King Nicomedes III of Bithynia in 109/108 BC and despite all warnings, he shared the region with Nicomedes (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 4.3; Arslan, 2007, p. 92). Rome, on the other hand, sent its ambassadors, informing both sides that Paphlagonia should be governed by its former way of rule (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 4.4). But Mithradates reacted to this situation, claiming that Paphlagonia had inherited it from his father, and did not allow the region to be restored to its old situation (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 4.5). As can be seen from this situation, Mithradates considered his kingdom equivalent to the Romans, and despite Roman pressure and threats, he thought that capturing Galatia was not a problem (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 4.6). Mithradates, who undoubtedly expanded his mobility to Asia Minor with the Galatian expedition, also built a castle called Mithradatium in the southwest of the Galatian region (Strabon, XII, p. 5.2) (Magie, 1950, p. 198).
After Mithradates invaded the territories of Paphylagonia and Galatia, he gained interest in the Kingdom of Cappadocia (Magie, 1950, p. 203). That's why he married Laodike, who would be his sister and also his wife after he was widowed
30
(Christodoulou, 2017, p. 11). Ariarathes VI, King of Cappadocia, ex-wife of his sister Laodike, was assassinated by a nobleman from Cappadocia named Gordius (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.1). From this date Laodike, sister of Mithradates Eupator, reigned as regent of Cappadocia until Ariarathes VII Philometor reached the age of the throne of the Kingdom of Cappadocia (Magie, 1950, p. 203). Mithradates, on the other hand, wanted to completely dominate Cappadocia by eliminating his nephew Ariarathes VII (Arslan, 2007, p. 97). But he was not the only one who wanted to dominate Cappadocia. King Nicomedes III of Bithynia wanted to take Cappadocia under his rule, he invaded the region in 103/102 BC, before Mithradates. Informed of this situation, Mithradates immediately formed an army and sent it to his sister Laodike, who was regent of Cappadocia (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.3). But the fact that his sister Laodike mysteriously married Nicomedes III, left Cappadocia and headed for Bithynia, made Mithradates very angry (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.4). So much so that Mithradates, who immediately mobilized his army, first drove out the soldiers of Bithynia in Cappadocia and put his nephew Ariarathes VII at the head of the Kingdom of Cappadocia (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.5). Although Nicomedes, King of Bithynia, who did not accept this situation, sent envoys to Rome and asked for help, Mithradates not only sent envoys but also distributed bribes in the Senate (Diodorus, XXXVI, p. 15.1). Ariarathes, King of Cappadocia, would have understood the political games made through him, and he was angry with his uncle and tried to build a large army attached to him (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.7). The presence of the armies of Mithradates, King of Pontus, and Ariarathes, King of Cappadocia, who soon met on the battlefield, were quite close to each other. So much so that Mithradates had an infantry army of 80,000 men, a cavalry regiment of 10,000 men and 600 chariots at his disposal (Justinus, XXXVIII, pp. 1.7-8). Mithradates, agitated because the forces
31
of both sides were quite close to each other, resorted to cheating (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.8). Accordingly, with a knife hidden under his clothes, he arranged to meet his nephew at a common point set by the two kings and brutally killed him in front of the eyes of the two armies (Justinus, XXXVIII, pp. 1.9-10). He then brought his 8-year-old son Ariarathes to the head of the Kingdom of Cappadocia and appointed Gordion, the nobleman of Cappadocia, to his regent, who assassinated his brother-in-law (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 1.10). But the Cappadocian people soon revolted and invited the brother of Ariarathes, King of Cappadocia, who was killed by Mithradates (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 2.1). The King, who soon ascended the throne of Cappadocia, was also able to mint coins in his name during this time (Arslan, 2007, p. 101). But despite this, neither Ariarathes ' claim to the throne of Cappadocia nor the nobles of Cappadocia could protect him against his uncle Mithradates (Magie, 1950, p. 204). After Mithradates, who soon recaptured Cappadocia with a large army, the young king's life was short-lived (Justinus, XXXVIII, pp. 2-3). By 96 BC, Ariarathes had died and Mithradates had regained control of Cappadocia (Magie, 1950, p. 204).
The fact that Cappadocia had fallen into the hands of Mithradates had greatly worried King Nicomedes III of Bithynia. So much so that he didn't want to lose it to Mithradates because he knew he couldn't recapture Cappadocia. So, claiming that Ariarathes, King of Cappadocia, who was brutally killed by Mithradates, had a third brother, he reported from Rome that he was the legal heir of Cappadocia and that he should assume the throne of Cappadocia (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 2.3). He even sent his new queen, Laodike, to Rome to confirm in the Senate the truth of his claim (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 2.4). However, Mithradates denied the claims by sending Gordius, Regent of Cappadocia, to Rome (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 2.5). The Romans, realizing that these stories were fabricated stories to capture Cappadocia, demanded that both
32
Kings withdraw from Cappadocia and Paphylagonia (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 2.6). After the retreat of Mithradates from Cappadocia, the Romans promised protection for the free administration of this region, rather than appointing a king to the Cappadocia region. But before long, the ambassadors of Cappadocia, who expressed that they wanted to be ruled by a king, also asked Rome to appoint a king to the region (Arslan, 2007, p. 103). The Romans allowed them to choose a king among themselves (Arslan, 2007, p. 103). After that, Ariobarzanes took over the Kingdom of Cappadocia (Strabon, XII, p. 2.11 c540). However, the king who had not yet given up the rule of Cappadocia, provoked King Tigranes II, who had just taken over the Kingdom of Armenia, to invade the region of Cappadocia (Justinus, XXXVII, p. 3.1). On the other hand, with the help of Gordius, he developed allied relations with King Tigranes II of Armenia and married his own daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes II (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 3.2; McGing, 1986b, p. 81). Tigranes II, who soon captured Cappadocia, returned to his country with the spoils he had obtained (Arslan, 2007, p. 103). However, when Tigranes II captured Cappadocia, the people became the biggest victim of an endless war. Many Cappadocians were forcibly emigrated to Mesopotamia by Order of Tigranes himself (Strabon, XII, p. 2.9). Ariobarzanes, King of Cappadocia, left the region with his treasures and fled to Rome (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 3.3). Thus, the dominion of Cappadocia fell back into the hands of Mithradates. As king, he placed his young son Ariarathes on the throne, as he had done before, and appointed Gordius as regent (Magie, 1950, p. 203).
By 94 BC, King Nicomedes III of Bithynia had died / been killed (Arslan, 2007, p. 106), Nicomedes IV took the throne of the Kingdom of Bithynia (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 3.4). However, Socrates Chrestus, the illegitimate son of Nicomedes III, appealed to Rome by rising up with his brother's acquisition of the throne, but when
33
he did not get the support he wanted, he came to Mithradates (Arslan, 2006, s. 106). Thus, seeing this as an opportunity, King Mithradates wanted to continue his policy in Cappadocia here (Magie, 1950, p. 207). Because the sitting of a king attached to him on the throne of the Kingdom of Bithynia was necessary for the conquest of Asia Minor that he wanted to achieve in the future (Arslan, 2007, p. 107). He first started by sending an assassin named Alexander to kill IV Nicomedes, but the Assassin failed to complete this mission successfully (Appian, Mithr. 57). It was even revealed that Mithradates was the one who sent the Assassin (Appian, Mithr. 57). When assassination plan was revealed, Mithradates personally took action with his army and captured Bithynia and overthrow Nicomedes IV and declared Socrates King of Bithynia in his place (Appian, Mithr.10; Arslan, 2007, p. 107).
Before the Asia Minor expedition, Mithradates implemented many policies to annex neighbouring kingdoms to his territory, thus fighting his enemies and achieving success on all fronts. So much so that during his reign, Ariarathes, his young son, was at the head of the Kingdom of Cappadocia, while Socrates Chrestus, connected to Mithradates, was at the head of the Kingdom of Bithynia. Mithradates, not content with this, both made a strong alliance with Armenia and employed thousands of people belonging to different nations that he brought from the Crimean Peninsula in his army (Magie, 1950, p. 207). After completely capturing the region of Paphylagonia, Mithradates, who connected the Galatians to himself, had reached the territory of the Kingdom of Pontus to its widest borders (Arslan, 2007, p. 111). But the real threat to Asia Minor was undoubtedly the Roman Republic. Because Rome, which had already established the Asian province in Asia Minor, was gradually beginning to feel its power. Finally, both nations met in Asia Minor.
34
5. PONTUS AND ROMAN STRUGGLE IN ASIA MINOR
The acquisition of an important place in the historical scene of the Kingdom of Pontus was undoubtedly due to the struggles of the Roman Republic and the domination of Asia Minor and Hellas. Mithradates Eupator Dionysus ' fame has now surpassed Asia Minor and Hellas, even reaching as far as Rome (Cicero, XXV, p. 60). The reason for this was his wars with the Roman Republic, but according to many ancient writers, he was a violent killer (Memnon, 22, p. 1). The courage he showed along with these wars which were known as the battles of Mithradat, and the fact that he could not be captured in any war, just like Hannibal, made him one of Rome's greatest enemies. This is why many antiquarian writers compared him to Hannibal, The Enemy of Rome (Velleius, II, p. 2.18).
During the early days of the reign of Mithradates, the king of Pontus, no aggressive policy was pursued against Rome, and friendly relations were established with Rome many times to strengthen the kingdom (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 13). This policy was first implemented during the reign of Pharnakes I, thanks to that the borders of the Kingdom of Pontus expanded considerably (Arslan, 2007, p. 65) At the time of Mithradates Eupator's father, Mithradates Euergetes, Roman interests were defended against the rebel Aristonicus, who wanted to take over the Seleucid Kingdom, thus Phrygia was included in the Kingdom of Pontus (Appian, Mithr.11) (Strabon, XIV, p. 1.38). Following the same policy, Mithradates was able to invade the tribes located northeast of Pontus Euksenos, which had not been ruled by any kingdom or Empire for a long time, despite Rome's presence in Asia Minor. But Rome, realizing that Mithradates was not like the Kings before him, began to suspect him after the Phasis (Poti) expedition organized by Mithradates (Memnon, 22, pp. 3-4). Rome's policy was quite different from that. While Rome was able to end the
35
struggles between the kingdoms of Bithynia, Cappadocia and Pontus in Asia Minor, it was decidedly silent about the wars between these kingdoms, thus allowing them to weaken each other, preventing any kingdom from becoming stronger and decisively disobeying it. Rome, which resorted to different policies in order to stay permanently in Anatolia, donated lands that it could not dominate, as in the revolt of Aristonicus to the regional kingdoms, and then made them part of the Asian Province at the pressure of taxpayers (Appian, Mithr.11; Arslan, 2007, p. 116). In this way, Rome, which had accepted its presence here in a short time, also became an ally trusted by many kingdoms in Anatolia. So much so that all the kingdoms appealed to Rome to resolve the disputes that existed between them, hoping that it would solve their problems. Confidence in Rome had increased so much that even kings without an heir could grant their land to Rome as an inheritance (Strabon, XIII., p. 4.2). Thus, in Asia Minor, One Kingdom could not rule another kingdom without Rome's knowledge, and although a short-term success could be achieved, Rome ensured the return of the lands taken with the envoys it sent (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 2.6). If Rome's policy did not match any kingdom, alliances with other kingdoms were established and provoked to attack the territory of the enemy kingdom (Arslan, 2007, p. 117). For example, the area of Phrygia, donated to the Kingdom of Pontus by the rebellion of Aristonicus, suppressed during the time of Mithradates Euergetes, was taken from the kingdom of Pontus during the time of Mithradates Eupator, and was provoked by the Roman envoy Manius Auqillius to pillage the Lands of Bithynia by King Nicomedes IV of Pontus (Appian, Mithr.11). These policies, carried out politically by Rome, were met with hatred by both the kingdoms and the people, while lawlessness was quite painful in the lands that Rome dominated in Anatolia. So much so that Asia Minor had become a place where tax collectors ' illegal practices and lawsuits resulted in bribes
36
and favours (Justinus, XXXVIII, pp. 7-8). Despite this, Rome did not give up its policies but rather treated each kingdom as allies by wearing the mask of friendship. But because of his greedy actions, he is described as an invader in Asia Minor, and his political manoeuvres were not trusted (Appian, Mithr.11). The general Pelopidas of Pontus claimed that Rome's greed could no longer be tolerated and that if action was taken against Rome, many Roman enemies in Hellas, Africa and even Italy would support and side with King Mithradates of Pontus (Appian, Mithr.11). For this reason, Mithradates saw the misery of the people during his travels, and he tried to introduce himself as the Savior of the Hellenes to ensure that the west of Asia Minor would take their side in the war against Rome. Thus, he began preparations for a great war against Rome, thinking about preparing Asia Minor for a national struggle against the Roman invasion (Magie, 1950, p. 196). Along with this policy, Mithradates was very generous to the Hellenes of Asia Minor, and the Hellenes recognized him as the King who loves Hellenic people in Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, p. 120). Mithradates, who was not content with this, did not stop presenting himself as the champion and savior of the Hellenes in the coins he minted, so he tried to prove that he was the one who would save them against the Romans (Arslan, 2007, p. 121). Mithradates also used various narrations about his birth as a propaganda purpose in accordance with his policy, and he was successful in this (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 8). Because the courage and glory shown by Mithradates were highly accepted by the peoples of Asia Minor, many cities believed that Mithradates was the Savior (Cicero, XXV, p. 60).
After that, the first struggle between the Pontus King Mithradates Eupator and the Roman Republic began. According to Memnon, an antiquarian writer (Memnon, 22, pp. 1-2) the apparent cause of this war was Cappadocia. Rome, however, had already become quite uneasy with the strengthening state of Mithradates (Memnon,
37
22, pp. 3-4). Mithradates, on the other hand, felt strong enough to oppose the Romans and was not afraid of them (Arslan, 2007, p. 93). So much so that with the death of King Nicomedes III of Bithynia, he was expected to be replaced by Nicomedes IV, supported by Rome, while he supported Socrates Chrestus, who claimed the throne of Bithynia, adding another to his activities that would be the cause of War for Rome (Memnon, 22, p. 5). Because of this, The King, who had greatly strengthened his position in Asia Minor, was able to interfere in the internal affairs of neighbouring kingdoms as he wished, trying to announce to all sides that he would not enslave them to the tyranny of Rome. So much so that in Asia Minor, the name Mithradates is now considered the name of a God, the belief that he was the protector of Asia extended to Hellas and even to Italia (Cicero, XXV, p. 60).
By 102/101 BC, Rome commissioned Marcus Antonius to clear the coasts of Pamphlyia and Lydia in southern Asia Minor from Pirates (Livius, Periochae, pp. 68.1-3). Marcus Antonius, after several battles here, prevailed over the Pirates and completely captured the area (Livius, Periochae, p. 68.3). Thus, the coasts of Pamphylia and the east of Lycia, which largely held the trade network of Asia Minor, fell completely into the hands of Rome. Mithradates, on the other hand, had been very uncomfortable with this situation, and he sent his envoys to Rome to meet with the Senate with a large amount of gold (Diodorus, XXXVI, p. 15.1). Because Rome's capture of trade ports in the south of Asia Minor did not coincide with Mithradates' plans for Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, p. 95). The Romans sent their general Gaius Marius to Anatolia to break the pressure that Mithradates had established on Cappadocia and prepare for a possible war with Pontus in Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, p. 99). Although Marius said that he came to the region on a religious trip, his main goal was to provoke Mithradates and to become commander-in-chief in the war
38
against him (Arslan, 2007, pp. 99-100). As a matter of fact, Marius, who did not achieve what he wanted, returned to Rome (Livius, Periochae, p. 69.7).
In 90/89 BC, Rome sent Consul Manius Aquillius and a delegation of envoys to Anatolia to weaken Mithradates ' rule over Cappadocia and Bithynia and regain his lost authority in Asia Minor (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 3.4). At this time, Gaius Cassius, Governor of the Asian province of Pergamon (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 3.4) acted on orders from Rome and joined Manius and his envoys (Arslan, 2007, p. 108). Mithradates, on the other hand, was afraid of this situation, first retreating from Bithynia and then from Cappadocia (Appian, Mithr.11). He then armed the entire eastern world for the Great War with Rome (Justinus, XXXVIII, pp. 3.5-9). But not content with Mithradates ' retreat, the Consul Manius Aquillius demanded from Mithradates the expense he and the envoys had spent on the organized trip (Arslan, 2007, p. 109). After the negative response he received, he also provoked the Bithynians to attack the territory of Pontus (Appian, Mithr.16; Arslan, 2007, p. 109). King Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, although he was afraid of this large army gathered by Mithradates, knew that he could not turn down Rome's demand (Appian, Mithr.11). So, reluctantly acting with his army, he attacked the territory of Pontus and plundered the territory of Pontus as far as Amastris (Amasra) (Appian, Mithr.11). Mithradates, on the other hand, was silent on the unlawful sacking of his lands. Despite being repeatedly provoked for war, he did not counterattack, maintaining his composure (Appian, Mithr.11). The only reason Mithradates did this was to engage in a war for justifiable reasons rather than to be the party that started the war and to win the sympathy of the people of Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, pp. 108-109). No doubt, despite Manius ' instigation, he did not break what Rome said. First, he retreated from Cappadocia, and then he retreated from Bithynia to Sinop. Finally, he sent one of his
39
generals, Pelopidas, to Manius Aquillius of Rome and the envoys to listen to Rome's wishes (Appian, Mithr.12). But both sides failed to reach a conclusion (Appian, Mithr.12). Thus, war between Mithradates and Rome became inevitable. Mithradates, on the other hand, placed all responsibility for the war on Manius Aquillius (Appian, Mithr.21). However, according to many ancient writers, there were different reasons why Rome and Mithradates faced each other (Memnon, 22, pp. 1-3) (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 5.8). But the modern historians have attributed the cause of the war to the opportunism of Mithradates (McGing, 1986a, s. 87;144; Keaveney, Sulla, p. 197). The only issue in which both views converged on the common denominator was their policies that provoked each other on both sides. Eventually, Mithradates, one of the richest kings in the East, faced the most powerful Empire in the West.
5.1 Mithradates-Roman Wars ‘’From the Rise of Pontus to Peace in Asia Minor’’ (BC 89 – BC 85)
The deceptions of the Roman General Manius Aquillius finally yielded results, and war began between the Kingdom of Pontus and Rome. In the Battle of Mithradates against Rome, the Pontus army was quite strong in numbers and equipment. According to Justinus, one of the ancient writers (Justinus, XXXVIII, p. 5.9) Mithradates' Army from the Eastern world also included many Warriors, mainly Scythians and Armenians, but also Gallograecians, Sarmatians, and Bastarnians. Mithradates' army consisted of 300 thousand men (Appian, Mithr.11). Despite this, King Nicomedes of Bithynia had 56 thousand soldiers in his army (Appian, Mithr.11), while under Manius' command there was a small force brought by Gaius Cassius, Governor of Asia, to Asia Minor. Thus, the total presence of Manius' Army, together with the soldiers who joined from Galatia, was only 40 thousand soldiers (Appian, Mithr.11). Compared to the armies of both sides, Manius had neither troops to fight
40
against Mithradates nor any plans to counter him. For many years, Mithradates knew that one day he would meet Rome, and he prepared accordingly. At the beginning of the war, King Nicomedes of Bithynia, acting with the soldiers under his command, advanced to the river Amnias (Gokirmak) (Appian, Mithr.18), Manius, on the other hand, preferred to defend the main roads located on the border of Pontus and Cappadocia (Arslan, 2007, p. 130). Mithradates sent his generals Archelaus and Neoptolemus to meet Nicomedes (Appian, Mithr.18). In the battle near the Amnias River, the Bithynia army was almost destroyed. Nicomedes, although his own army was larger, lost the battle after the superior success of Archelaus and Neoptolemus and fled to Paphylagonia with the remaining 800 cavalry from his army (Appian, Mithr.18). Archelaus and Neoptolemus ' defeat of the Bithynia Army caused a shock when they reached Manius (Appian, Mithr.19). o much so that Manius' Army panicked when it saw that very few people from the Bithynia army had come to their camp, and they fled because they were afraid of meeting the same end (Memnon, 22, p. 7). When Mithradates learned of the victory of the Pontus army, he quickly sent his generals to disperse Manius' armies (Appian, Mithr.19). He himself marched on Manius with the main part of his army. Eventually, Manius ' armies were defeated by Sangarius (Sakarya), and a decisive victory was achieved, while Nicomedes managed to escape to Pergamon and Manius managed to escape to Rhodes (Rhodes) (Appian, Mithr.19). When Mithradates reached Manius' camp with his army, he had captured thousands of Romans and captured a large amount of loot. But he also did not hesitate to show his goodwill to the people of Asia Minor, releasing a number of soldiers consisting of prisoners of war, thus showing once again how compassionate and benevolent he was (Arslan, 2007, p. 136). This approach of the King was positively received by the people of Asia Minor, crowds flocking from many places greeted him
41
with great joy wherever Mithradates passed (Diodorus, XXXVII, p. 27). As a matter of fact, many people in Asia Minor thought of the King as a savior and therefore wanted to salute the one who saved them as a hero.
Moving towards Bithynia without wasting much time on the battlefield, Mithradates easily captured Bithynia without encountering any difficulties (Strabon, XII, p. 40). Many castles and cities that saw his army in the places he passed had opened their gates to Mithradates. With the capture of Bithynia, the Navy of Bithynia, consisting of 400 pieces, was also taken over by Mithradates, and the Navy of Pontus reached the Aegean Sea for the first time (Magie, 1950, p. 213). Nicomedes, King of Bithynia, defeated by Archelaus and Neoptolemus, took refuge in Rome with several of his men (Strabon, XII, p. 40). Later, Mithradates, who marched towards Phrygia, also captured this place, and also stayed in an inn near the city, where Alexander The Great had previously stayed in the eastern expedition (Appian, Mithr.20). Just like Alexander, as the savior of the Anatolian people, his stay in this inn strengthened the spirituality of his generals and army in his war against Rome (Appian, Mithr.20). Many cities captured in Asia Minor recognized Mithradates as a savior and sided with him, recognizing his dominance. Some also allied with Mithradates, keeping him on his side against Rome. Of course, there were cities that resisted. Of these, the Rhodians, who largely controlled Mediterranean trade, maintained their alliance with Rome (Memnon, 22, p. 8).
As Mithradates' advance continued in Asia Minor, Manius Aquillius was captured near the island of Kos when he was about to escape, and then brought before Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 21). Manius was described by Mithradates as the sole culprit of this war, and was found guilty of his ambition and fondness for gold. Mithradates, on the other hand, had him exposed by taking him with him wherever he
42
went, and had him killed by pouring molten gold from his throat in Pergamon (Appian, Mithr.21). Announcing his victory at Pergamon, Mithradates then appointed satraps to various cities and captured the city of Stratonicea. Here, the king, who took a young girl named Monima as his wife, sent his generals to capture the regions of Magnesia and Lycia (Appian, Mithr.21). He also came to Ephesus, where he made new decisions about the presence of Rome in Asia Minor (Orosius, Hist. VI, p. 2). Accordingly, he introduced a 5-year tax exemption for the inhabitants of the city in exchange for the damage caused by the Romans to the people (Arslan, 2007, p. 147). He then began preparations for an expedition to the city of Rhodes, which continued its relations with Rome and largely undertook Mediterranean trade (Appian, Mithradates, p. 22).
The King's victory over Manius only drove the Roman armies out of Asia Minor. The King's goal was to completely remove the Romans from Asia Minor. But with the exception of the Roman army, there were far too many Roman and Roman supporters in Asia Minor (Arslan, 2007, p. 159). When the Romans established the province of Asia, the Romans here acquired a completely different and independent status from the local people. Because even an ordinary Roman citizen involved in any crime could not be tried by local judges, he could only be tried by Roman judges (Magie, 1950, p. 163). The situation was very disturbing to the local people, and the Romans took advantage of all the advantages provided independently of the local people. They also used these advantages quite well, in order to have a say in the management of the cities, they took important positions in the economy of the city by engaging in marital relations with noble families (Arslan, 2007, p. 159). So Mithradates realized that he had to be rid of the Romans in Asia Minor forever. Because the fact that the Romans continued to live here meant that they could have a
43
say in the administration of the cities at any time and oppose him. Also, because of the loyalty of the Romans living here to Rome, they would change sides in a possible Roman war and pose a threat to the Kingdom of Pontus (Memnon, p. 31.4). In addition, thousands of non-Romans had a great hatred of the Romans in the face of the illegal practices of taxpayers (Justinus, XXXVIII, pp. 7-8). However, the unbridled anger of the people and Mithradates' idea of ridding the Romans of outweighed and the king, by making an extremely vital decision, changed the balance in Asia Minor. Initially, he considered deporting all Romans from Asia Minor, but because of the large number of them, he found it more appropriate to conduct a general massacre (Magie, 1950, p. 216). Thus, he wrote a letter to all the satraps in Asia Minor and to the cities associated with him, ordering the killing of Roman men, their wives and children, even non-Romans who were born in Rome but lived here freely (Orosius, Hist. VI, p. 2). In addition, he said that the bodies of the murdered Romans should not be buried, the treasures belonging to the murdered Romans should be shared with him, those who hide the Romans without fulfilling the orders he sent will be severely punished, even slaves who depend on the Roman owners can kill their Roman Masters, if they do so, they can get their freedom, even if there are those who owe the Romans, their debts will be forgiven (Appian, Mithradates, p. 22). This order was welcomed in many cities due to the anger towards the Romans, and within a day all the victims were attacked and slaughtered (Livius, Periochae, p. 78.1). As a result of this horrific attack, many innocent people, along with the Romans living in Asia Minor, died. Romanians were attacked by bandits who wanted to turn this into an opportunity and sought loot (Arslan, 2007, p. 163). According to Memnon, this attack, known in history as the ‘Massacre of Ephesos’, was also mentioned that 80 thousand people were killed (Memnon, p. 31.4) while another writer, Plutarchos, mentioned that
44
150 thousand people were killed in one day (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 14.4) According to Arslan (Arslan, 2007, p. 165) one of the modern historians, there were two reasons for this massacre. The first was the hatred and hostility brought by the anger towards the Romans, and the second was economic. With this decision taken by Mithradates, the debts of those who owed money would be erased, and those who did not have income would be able to obtain loot. According to Magie, one of the modern historians (Magie, 1950, p. 217) many innocent people were killed by bandits during this massacre. In fact, in 88 BC, when the massacre took place, there were two major cities where the Romans were the majority. These were Pergamon and Ephesos. Even the innocents who lived here and took refuge in temples to escape the massacre were brutally slaughtered (Appian, Mithradates, p. 23). Mithradates, on the other hand, achieved his goal with this massacre, both freed from the Romans and Bound the People of Asia Minor in such a way that he could not return to himself (Magie, 1950, p. 217).
Having completed his preparations after the massacre, Mithradates marched on the Rhodesians, the last ally of the Romans in Asia Minor (Livius, Periochae, p. 78). Since the Rhodesians predicted that Mithradates would march on them, they were prepared for a possible siege by strengthening the walls of the city and installing war machines (Arslan, 2007, p. 175). According to Mithradates, Rhodes should have been captured as soon as possible. Because many Roman’s fleeing the massacre in Asia Minor took refuge here (Magie, 1950, p. 218). Despite this, Rhodes 'naval power was considerably greater than Mithradates' naval power when compared to Mithradates'. So much so that the Rhodes ships were also superior in experience.
Because the navy was engaged in continuous trade except during the war, and the Navy consisted of regular ships. But in Mithradates' Navy, the situation was
45
different. Mithradates' Navy was undisciplined and at rare times consisted of ships engaged in naval battles (Diodorus, XXXVII, p. 28). Nevertheless, Mithradates launched a major attack on Rhodes with all his might, both from land and sea (Magie, 1950, p. 218). Mithradates had prepared several siege vehicles for use in the siege of Rhodes, but the Rhodes Navy, with reinforced ramparts and experienced admirals, repulsed them. The king, who had assaulted many times to capture the city, could not capture the city of Rhodes (Appian, Mithradates, p. 26). Later, due to the failure of his heavy attacks from both land and sea, and his concern for the suppression of the winter season, he abandoned the capture of Rhodes, and soon returned to Asia Minor (Magie, 1950, pp. 218,219).
After Mithradates returned to Asia Minor, the Kingdom of Pontus rised in Asia Minor, so to facilitate its rule, Mithradates decisively distributed the management of the cities among his generals. On the other hand, he spent most of his time in seclusion, training for war and entertainment (Appian, Mithradates, p. 27). By 88 BC, Mithradates had sent two large armies to Aegean. One of these armies was sent to capture Thrace and Macedonia, while the other was sent to capture Hellas (Magie, 1950, p. 219). Both armies advanced rapidly and defeated the armies that stood in front of them one by one, eventually taking over the majority of Hellas (Appian, Mithradates, p. 29). Thus, Delos, Athens, Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly and almost all of middle Hellas came under the rule of Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 29).
As Mithradates ' advance continued unabated, the Romans commissioned Lucius Cornelius Sulla to end this advance and avenge their defeat (Appian, Mithradates, p. 30). But the situation became even more serious, and when Sulla arrived in Epirus, he was astonished that almost the majority of Hellas had been captured by Mithradates (Magie, 1950, p. 220). After that, he moved quickly and
46
came to Hellas. When the General Archelaous of Pontus, who was in Hellas at the time, received news that Sulla had arrived, he moved to Hellas to fight him. Sulla's Army, however, was quite inadequate in presence compared to Archelaus' Army. So he crossed to Attica intending to gather reinforcements from Thessaly alongside five Legion soldiers and their mounted troops (Appian, Mithradates, p. 30). He then moved with the soldiers he had gathered.
Sulla, moving quickly, managed to squeeze Archelaus into the Port of Piraeus, and then besieged the city with all his might (Magie, 1950, p. 221). However, despite the intense siege of the city, he could not achieve the superiority he wanted. This was due to the presence of a large Pontus Navy on West Aegean. Because Athens, thanks to the ships sent by Mithradates, regularly received supplies and reinforcements of troops from the Port of Piraeus (Magie, 1950, p. 220). And Sulla had no fleet to cut off the aid of the Pontus Navy. So, Sulla secretly sent Lucullus, one of his aides, to Alexandria (Appian, Mithradates, p. 33). Lucullus ' mission was to return to Alexandria with a strong navy and besiege the Port of Piraeus and prevent reinforcements of supplies to the city. However, after a long siege, Sulla took control of the road to the Port of Piraeus, completely preventing supplies from entering the city. Thus, the aid sent to Athens was cut off, and famine began in the city (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 13). Although sufficient supplies were stored before the siege, the blockade of Sulla could not be broken, and therefore the people were doomed to starvation. Finding nothing to eat, they also tried to survive by melting their shoe skins (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 13). The situation would have become such that people began to eat each other, and hundreds of people began to die every day due to various diseases (Appian, Mithradates, p. 32).
47
Learning of the situation through his spies, Sulla increased his pressure on the city thoroughly. In the spring of 86 B.C he also captured Athens (Livius, Periochae, p. 81.2). With the fall of Athens, he quickly marched on Archelaus, who was in Piraeus, and captured this place as well (Appian, Mithradates, p. 40; Magie, 1950, p. 221). Archelaus, on the other hand, managed to escape with the Pontus Fleet, which was in the port.
After the massacre of Ephesus, the anger of the Romans never subsided (Appian, Mithradates, p. 40). Therefore, Mithradates saw this opportunity as revenge against them and massacred the people of Athens, broken by hunger and thirst, without any privileges (Magie, 1950, p. 221). In addition, they also plundered the sacred temples and treasures of the city, famous for its wealth (Arslan, 2007, p. 202). So, the ancient inhabitants of the city and the Roman senators, who took refuge in the Acropolis, insisted on sulla to donate the city. Sulla, on the other hand, declared that the survivors were forgiven for the sake of the dead (Magie, 1950, p. 221).
After the loss of Athens, Archelaus passed to Thessaly with troops attached to him (Appian, Mithradates, p. 41). Archelaus, who joined with the Pontian General Taxiles sent by Mithradates here, gathered about 120 thousand soldiers at Thermopylae, consisting of Thracian, Scythian, Cappadocian, Bithynian, Galatian, and Phrygian (Appian, Mithradates, p. 41). Sulla, on the other hand, stopped plundering Athens and moved to meet Archelaus. But as a result of his war with Archelaus, most cities in Hellas were devastated, making it almost impossible to find supplies. So he turned his way north to provide supplies to feed his own army. Julius. In addition, this area was an area unsuitable for the cavalry to fight. On the other hand, the Roman army had repeatedly proven its reputation in the battles of the square. Because of this, he moved towards Boeotia, which both had no problems finding
48
supplies and had Plains more suitable for his cavalry to fight (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 15). At Archelaus, he mobilized with his army and engaged in a battle with Sulla at the Chaeroneia position in Boeotia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 42). Although initially, both armies gained the upper hand over the enemy army by capturing various hills, Sulla, who fought an army 3 times his size, knew of a decisive victory and defeated the General Archelaus of Pontus (Livius, Periochae, pp. 81,82). After this defeat, the Pontus army was almost destroyed. Because of the 140 thousand soldiers under Archelaus, only 10 thousand met decisively in Chalcis. Although Archelaus tried to rally his disbanded army, he was not successful (Appian, Mithradates, p. 45). Ultimately crowning the battle with victory, Sulla captured a large number of prisoners of war and loot (Livius, Periochae, p. 81). In addition, he erected a Victory Monument on the battlefield where he destroyed the Pontus Army in memory of his great victory (Arslan, 2007, p. 215).
When news of the defeat reached Mithradates, the King was in Pergamon. Horrified by the news, The King moved to gather a large army again in no time (Appian, Mithradates, p. 46). Mithradates, who soon gathered a large force, dispatched a large army to Greece in 86 BC under the command of General Dorylaus of Pontus (Magie, 1950, p. 223). On the other hand, the defeat against the Romans had shaken confidence in Mithradates in Asia Minor. Mithradates, who received news that he was going to be assassinated thanks to a wide intelligence network, took very drastic measures to eliminate it (Arslan, 2007, p. 216). Later, when he learned that Galatians who had sworn allegiance to him before the Battle of Chaeroneia would attempt an assassination against him, he prepared a great feast and invited Galata Chiefs and their wives and children to this feast (Appian, Mithradates, p. 46). Then all the Galata Chiefs and their families who were at the feast with the King's sign were
49
killed without mercy (Appian, Mithradates, p. 46). Because Mithradates considered Sulla certain that Galata would betray him if he came to Asia Minor (Appian, Mithradates, p. 46). But Galata chief Deiotaros, who survived this massacre, fled to Galatia and soon revolted the people against the satrap appointed by Mithradates to Galatia, and after great struggles, he knew that he would take over Galatia (Arslan, 2007, p. 218). Thus, Mithradates gained the hostility of Galatians in all the wars he would do after that, enabling them to take part on the side of Rome (Arslan, 2007, p. 219).
The defeat of the Pontus army also mobilized the cities of Asia Minor, and major cities such as Ephesus, Smyrna, Lesbos and Sardis revolted against Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 48). Mithradates, on the other hand, took immediate action to prevent the expansion of the rebellion against him in Asia Minor. By issuing a general statement, he declared that he had freed the cities associated with him and that all debts to the kingdom had been erased until now (Arslan, 2007, p. 222). This policy, which he implemented, soon had a positive effect, and the cities associated with Mithradates also ended the uprisings (Appian, Mithradates, p. 48).
While in Asia Minor, he set foot in Hellas with a large army under General Dorylaus of Pontus and met Archelaus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 49). Here, with 10 thousand soldiers that Archelaus brought with him, an army of enormous size was formed in Calchis, the number of which was 90 thousand (Appian, Mithradates, p. 49). However, there was a leadership dispute between Archelaus and Dorylaus to decommission the army. Because Archelaus, after his defeat, wanted to wage a war of attrition against Sulla, he reported that he could not tolerate a second defeat. Dorylaus, on the other hand, advocated a battle of the Square, stating that Mithradates' request favoured a harsh response against the Romans (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 20). Thus,
50
Archelaus did not oppose the yoke of Mithradates, leaving command of the army to Dorylaus (Keaveney, Sulla, p. 81). Sulla, on the other hand, soon completed his preparations and moved towards Orchomenus, who was in Boiotia (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 20). So both armies faced off at Orchomenus. Although the Romans were superior many times during the war, they suffered huge losses on both sides, and the marshy part of Lake Kephissos, located on the battlefield, was red with the blood and corpses of the dead (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 21). However, Sulla, the commander of the Roman armies at the Battle of Orchomenus, once again defeated the Pontus army under Dorylaus on the battlefield, about 50 thousand people in the Pontus Army (Orosius, Hist. VI, p. 2.6) had eliminated it in a day (Appian, Mithradates, p. 49). ). Later, a large number of soldiers were taken prisoner and had a large plunder. Among the captives was Archelaus, a general of the Pontus Army. He made an offer to him, saying that he would share all his power and money with him if he left the Kingdom of Pontus and ceased to be a slave of Mithradates (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 22). Thus, Archalaus and the soldiers attached to him and the Royal Navy of Pontus sided with Sulla (Livius, Periochae, p. 82.4).
Meanwhile, in Greece, Marius, one of Cornelius Sulla's greatest rivals in Rome, and his supporters took over, decrying Sulla as a traitor (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 22). However, after Marius ' unexpected death, Valerius Flaccus, again an anti-Sulla, took over (Livius, Periochae, p. 80). Flaccus, on the other hand, first gathered a large army and came to Hellas to fight Mithradates in 86 BC (Appian, Mithradates, pp. 50-51). But when he reached Hellas, revolts arose in Flaccus ' Army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 51). Because, Flaccus had become an individual hated by the army for his unjust punishments and greedy manners (Appian, Mithradates, p. 51). Thus, many soldiers fleeing injustice and unjustified violence tried to side with Sulla, who had proved
51
himself by his victories by abandoning Flaccus' camp (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 22.1). When Flaccus learned that Sulla had emerged victorious from the Battle of Orchomenus, he moved away from Hellas and continued on his way through Macedonia and came before Byzantion in the first months of 85 BC (Arslan, 2007, p. 230). Because Flaccus needed a Navy to cross the strait, he appointed a commander named Thermus to head the army and went to Chalcedon (Kadıköy) to meet with the Chalcedonians (Appian, Mithradates, p. 52). But one of his aides, Fimbria, knowing that Flaccus had the opportunity to leave the camp, first provoked the Roman soldiers against Flaccus, and then had Flaccus' appointee Thermus killed (Appian, Mithradates, p. 52). Later, after capturing and killing Flaccus, he invaded Nicomedia (Kocaeli), allowing the city to be plundered day and night by his soldiers (Diodorus, XXXVIII., p. 8.2). Mithradates was unable to allow fimbria to plunder the cities one by one, and assigned a large contingent to the command of his son, Mithradates, who was named after him. He ordered fimbria to be stopped at all costs, sending it over to the Roman army (Magie, 1950, p. 227). After that, the younger son Mithradates marched on fimbria, taking with him experienced generals such as Taxiles, Diophantus and Menandros (Arslan, 2007, p. 231). He soon defeated this great army sent over Fimbria and drove the son of Mithradates to Pergamon (Appian, Mithradates, p. 52). Mithradates ' defeats against Sulla and fimbria shook his authority and greatly reduced his confidence (Arslan, 2007, p. 232). Besides, he had lost his last army in the war against Fimbria. So much so that, King Mithradates was terrified when Fimbria made a rapid southward march shortly after the Pontic forces were dispersed. (Magie, 1950, p. 227). Because the king lost both armies in Hellas, which he prepared using all his resources, and could not stop Fimbria, which came after him. He therefore sent Archelaus, one of his commanders, who was on good terms with Sulla, to Sulla to make a reasonable deal in
52
exchange for Sulla's removal of Fimbria from Asia Minor (Appian, Mithradates, pp. 54-58; Arslan, 2007, p. 232). Archelaus, on the other hand, came to Sulla's side in a short time and stated that he would give up the war, support the Fimbria issue, and that it would be to his advantage if he reached a compromise with Mithradates (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 22). Sulla for strategic and political reasons (Arslan, 2007, p. 232) He realized that it would not help to prolong the war any longer, and accepted. Thereupon, an agreement known as the Dardanellos agreement was concluded between both parties. According to the agreement; Mithradates would relinquish Asia Minor and Paphylagonia, restore Bithynia and Cappadocia to their pre-war status, leaving the administration to Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). In addition, 2 thousand talents of money and 70 bronze armored ships were to be given to the Romans as war reparations (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). After listening to Sulla's demands, the Pontus envoys set out to convey this to Mithradates, and Sulla, along with his army and Archelaus, took action towards Hellespont (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 23.1). Whatever the outcome of the treaty, his aim was to cross into Asia Minor and defeat Fimbria, who betrayed him. In the meantime, the Pontic envoys, after meeting with Mithradates, came to the Roman camp and continued to negotiate with Sulla. During the meeting, the envoys said that all the requests were approved, but the delivery of Paphlagonia and 70 pieces of the ship was not accepted (Appian, Mithradates, p. 56). Sulla was very angry at this situation and said that he would capture Asia Minor with his Roman armies (Magie, 1950, p. 229). Thus, Archelaus intervened and said that he would personally appear before Mithradates and persuade him at any cost (Arslan, 2007, p. 234). Convincing Mithradates after a short time, Archelaus appeared before Sulla and added that the offer was accepted, but
53
Mithradates wanted to meet with Sulla wherever he was (Arslan, 2007, p. 234). Thus, both sides took action to meet in Dardanus.
Meanwhile, Lucullus, sent by Sulla to Alexandria to find decommissioning, had reached the coast of Asia Minor despite all the difficulties (Appian, Mithradates, p. 56). Lucullus had a large Navy under his command, which he assembled from Cyprus, Phoenicia, Rhodes, and Pamphylia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 56). When Lucullus learned that Mithradates and Sulla were to meet in Dardanos, he moved to Dardanos to meet Sulla in no time (Appian, Mithradates, p. 56). But Lucullus, who encountered the Royal Navy of Pontus off Tenedos, here defeated the Royal Navy of Pontus, led by the General Neoptolemos of Pontus, and continued his movement towards Dardanos (Magie, 1950, p. 228). With this naval battle off Tenedos, the first Mithradates and Roman wars were completely over, and both sides met at Dardanos to agree (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 24.1). Sulla repeated his offer to the envoys, saying that if the offer was accepted, the cruel fimbria would be expelled from Asia Minor at all costs, while Mithradates would be considered a friend and ally of Rome (Appian, Mithradates, p. 58). Mithradates, on the other hand, declared that he agreed to these terms. Thus, both sides agreed mutually, and eventually, a peace agreement was signed. As a result, Mithradates ended the first of the Roman Wars (Appian, Mithradates, p. 58).
With the conclusion of the treaty, Sulla rallied all his forces and marched on Fimbria (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 25.1). Then, addressing Fimbria, he informed him to surrender his army at all costs, that he did not want to shed Roman blood, that he could survive if he obeyed his terms (Appian, Mithradates, p. 59). Fimbria turned down Sulla's request and sent an assassin to kill Sulla. But after the assassination failed, it became clear that fimbria had done it, and he was ostracized by his own
54
army. Fimbria, who now had many soldiers on Sulla's side, stabbed herself and died in an attempt to commit suicide due to this embarrassing situation (Livius, Periochae, p. 83.8). Sulla, along with his army, left Ephesus with the Navy collected by Lucullus and the 75-piece ship taken from Mithradates and returned to Piraeus and then to Rome (Plutarch, Sulla, p. 26.1).
As a result, Anti-Roman and Hellenistic activities in Asia Minor ended in great failure (Magie, 1950, p. 231). All the cities in Asia Minor have seen that a native King in Asia Minor can be even more cruel than Rome. As a matter of fact, the brutal killing of even Galatians who supported him in every war clearly showed that no one under Mithradates was safe (Appian, Mithradates, p. 46). However, Sulla generously helped all those who did not support him in his wars against the Kingdom of Pontus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 61). But the people of Athens also committed great atrocities. Despite his Anti-Roman and Hellenistic policies, Mithradates made Pontus a Kingdom, albeit for a short time, and collected a lot of prizes from the lands he captured. However, the defeats suddenly reversed the fate of the Kingdom of Pontus, and with the agreement of Dardanus, the borders of the Kingdom of Pontus were restored to their former state. Thus, The King returned to Sinope in Mithradates, and peace prevailed in Asia Minor, albeit for a short time.
5.2 Mithradates-Roman Wars ‘’Murena and the struggle of Mithradates’’ (83 BC-81 BC)
Returning to Rome in 83 BC, Sulla first neutralized his enemies, who seized power in his absence and celebrated for two days by organizing large feasts for his great victories over (Magie, 1950, p. 240). And to Asia Minor, he appointed his trusted man, Lucius Lucullus. He left his trusted assistant Lucius Murena, who was of
55
great benefit to him in the battles of Hellas, to defend Asia Minor against Mithradates along with 2 Legio, who fled Fimbria and took refuge with him (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). Sulla's first mission to Murena was to protect the cities on the coast of Asia Minor against Sea Pirates (Magie, 1950, pp. 240-241). Because it was the trading ports on the southern coast that enriched Asia Minor and made it different from other regions. The first purpose of many cities and kingdoms, especially the Roman Republic, was to control eastern Mediterranean trade. However, with Sulla's departure from Asia Minor, there was a power vacuum here, east Mediterranean pirates attacked the cities as they wished, and plundered the cities by taking the people prisoner (Arslan, 2007, p. 268). So Lucius Murena was appointed to ensure that East Mediterranean trade was not disrupted. Soon gathering a Navy, Murena removed the Pirates stationed here from the Eastern Mediterranean, albeit temporarily (Magie, 1950, p. 241). Thus, he praised Murena for saving many cities and ports in the Eastern Mediterranean from Pirates. Rhodes, considered one of the cities with a say in the Eastern Mediterranean trade, erected inscriptions in the name of Murena, commemorating him with titles such as Emperor, chief guest and Savior (Arslan, 2007, p. 269). But the piracy activity ended for a short time.
In the Eastern Mediterranean, as in Asia Minor, the defeats of Mithradates against Rome in Pontus greatly shaken his authority (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). So much so that the Colchians and Native tribes in the Cimmerian Bosphorus, located on the eastern border of the kingdom, revolted against Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). Mithradates, on the other hand, was quite surprised by this situation. Since the capture of Colchis and Cimmerian Bosphorus, he had not encountered any problems, although he had always appointed people he trusted as governors (Strabon, XI, p. 2.18). But the truth soon emerged, that Mithradates' son, who had been commissioned
56
by Mithradates to stop the advance of Fimbria, had begun an uprising in Colchis to overthrow his father's power (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). The rebels reported that they wanted to recognize Mithradates' son, Mithradates, as governor of the region (Arslan, 2007, p. 272). After Mithradates became aware of the situation by skillfully suppressing the uprising, he first imprisoned his son Mithradates and then killed him (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64).
In 84 BC, a large navy and a crowded Army were formed in a short time, taking the necessary measures to regain control of the Bosphorus of Cimmeria and against possible rebellions (Arslan, 2007, p. 273). He also put one of his famous generals, Neoptolemus, in charge of this army. Neoptolemus soon overcame the Barbarians in the Boshoros of Cimmeria and took the region back under the rule of the Kingdom of Pontus (Strabon, VII, p. 3.18).
The establishment of such a large navy and army against the tribes formed the belief that this expedition was not made against the tribes, but against the presence of the Romans in Asia Minor (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). Because Mithradates, who accused Archelaus of treason because he thought he had betrayed him in the Treaty of Dardanus, had become an open target when Archelaus took refuge in Murena's camp and provoked him against him (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). Murena, on the other hand, argued that Pontus should be annexed and Mithradates should be completely eliminated (Magie, 1950, p. 243). Finally, the righteousness of Mithradates was revealed. Archelaus convinced Murena that a great victory would belong to him if he acted immediately against Mithradates (Arslan, 2007, p. 274). Murena, who had been mobilized in a short time, set out with his mercenaries, consisting of troops and Galatians attached to him. Reaching Comana via the Cappadocia road, Murena put the Pontus soldiers who were here to the sword and plundered the temple full of treasures
57
(Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). Mithradates, on the other hand, did not find any military moves against the Pontus attack that Murena carried out without cause (Magie, 1950, p. 243). Instead, he sent envoys from Pontus to the Senate to complain about Murena's actions and to Sulla, where he signed the Treaty of Dardanus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 65). He also sent a large group of envoys consisting of Pontic philosophers and scholars to Murena, informing him to end his actions, that this was contrary to the Treaty of Dardanus (Arslan, 2007, p. 275). In response, Murena reported that no such agreement had been made, that the agreement had been made orally, so it did not mean anything (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). He then began preparations for a second attack, thinking that Mithradates was afraid of this situation, as his actions did not correspond to any (Magie, 1950, p. 243). Then, departing with troops attached to him, Murena plundered about four hundred villages belonging to the Kingdom of Pontus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 65). Mithradates, on the other hand, remained unresponsive to the actions of the Roman general Murena. Because he had sent his army to the Bosphorus of Cimmeria, thinking that he would not enter the Great War. So he began to wait for an answer from his messengers. Eventually, he received positive news from the envoys he sent to Rome. Rome had sent a commissar named Calidius to Asia Minor to tell Murena that the king of a friendly country should not be attacked (Magie, 1950, p. 244)Calidius soon arrived in Asia Minor and met Murena face-to-face, but was unable to convince Murena. He even continued his aggressive attitude. This time, he also attacked Southern Pontus territory, obtaining a large amount of loot and retreated to Phrygia without wasting much time (Appian, Mithradates, p. 64). Mithradates ' patience ran out after the brutal sacking of the Pontus lands for the third time and no results were obtained from the envoys sent to Rome (Magie, 1950, p. 244). Because the protests and diplomatic developments against Murena did not reach
58
a conclusion, and diplomatic activities in this area failed. Thus, Mithradates, who understood that the Romans were determined to destroy him, took action (Arslan, 2007, p. 277).
He first ordered his general Gordius to raid the villages around Murena's camp to retaliate. Gordius returned to Pontus with a large amount of gold, raiding villages under Roman protection, trapping a large number of cattle, Roman soldiers, and people (Appian, Mithradates, p. 65). Mithradates, on the other hand, set out to meet Murena, forming a large (Arslan, 2007, p. 278). At this time, Murena had received news of Gordius ' raids and had come to the edge of the Halys River to meet him and set up camp here (Magie, 1950, p. 244). Gordius, however, did not take action against Murena until he arrived at the edge of the river Halys with Mithradates' Army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 65). With the arrival of Mithradates on the battlefield, the Roman and Pontus troops faced off once again. Ultimately, the Pontus soldiers who had been thrown over Murena won a great victory (Appian, Mithradates, p. 65). Since Murena knew that he would be destroyed if he stayed any longer after losing most of his troops, he quickly retreated towards Phrygia, rallying his disbanded troops (Appian, Mithradates, p. 65) (Magie, 1950, p. 245). The decisive victory of Mithradates spread rapidly throughout Asia Minor. In a short time, resentment and hatred of the Romans re-emerged, and many cities again sided with Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 66). When Murena's defeat reached Rome, Sulla sent the Roman envoy, Aulus Gabinius, to Asia Minor, informing him that the conflict had grown and that he should abandon provocative actions on both sides (Magie, 1950, p. 245). who soon arrived in Asia Minor, gave Murena a stern ultimatum to the King of Pontus to stop his conflicts as soon as possible (Arslan, 2007, p. 282). He later reported that Sulla had ordered him to return to Rome (Keaveney, Sulla, p. 162).
59
Mithradates, taking advantage of Murena's retreat, entered Cappadocia again and almost destroyed the small Roman garrison left by Murena in Cappadocia (Magie, 1950, p. 245). Thus, Mithradates, who once again invaded the territory of Cappadocia, deposed Ariobarzanes, King of Cappadocia, for the fourth time (Arslan, 2007, p. 279). Sulla, on the other hand, instructed Gabinius, whom he sent to Asia Minor, to reconcile the Kingdom of Pontus with the Kingdom of Cappadocia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 66). With Gabinius' support, both sides reached a compromise (Keaveney, Sulla, p. 162). Accordingly, Mithradates would betroth his four-year-old daughter to Ariobarzanes, son of the King of Cappadocia. He also tried to show that he was in favour of peace by giving a great banquet, that this war took place because of Murena's pro-war stance (Appian, Mithradates, p. 66). Thus, the Pontus and Roman armies, facing each other for the second time after three years of war, retreated to their positions before the war, and Mithradates once again ended the Roman Wars (Keaveney, Sulla, p. 162).
As a result, Mithradates realized that diplomacy against the Romans was not enough, and showed him that a well-thought-out step was necessary against the Romans, even if it caused a hot conflict, so he could survive and have a chance (Arslan, 2007, p. 278). He also captured some parts of Cappadocia, despite the peace made with the King of Cappadocia, Ariobarzanes. He intended to convince Rome of a written peace with him. But when Sulla learned of the situation, he was forced to withdraw completely from Cappadocia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 66). He then sent his envoys to Rome to make the peace of Dardanus written (Keaveney, Sulla, p. 162). However, before the treaty could be signed, the dictator Cornelius Sulla died in 78 BC (Appian, Mithradates, p. 67). The Senate, on the other hand, did not want to make a peace treaty with Mithradates, as it was preoccupied with other matters (Keaveney,
60
Sulla, p. 162). Although Mithradates' envoys tried to appear before the Senate several times, they were rejected each time and realizing that they could not make any agreements, the Pontic envoys returned without making a deal (Appian, Mithradates, p. 67). Sulla's death caused a civil war in Rome, and the chaos and destruction brought by confusion prevented Rome from recovering for five years (Livius, Periochae, p. 90). In this way, a longer and more lasting peace environment was achieved in Asia Minor than the previous one, giving weight to internal issues on both sides.
5.3 Mithradates –Roman Wars ‘’Lucullus' Pontus - Armenia Expeditions and Roman rule in Asia Minor’’ (BC 74 – BC 67)
Mithradates had triumphed by defeating his enemy after Murena's attack on the territory of Pontus. But he could not register his victory in the field with diplomacy at the table (Keaveney, Sulla, p. 162). Because, despite Mithradates ' victory in the war, the Senate did not want to make peace with Mithradates by decrying the civil war between them (Arslan, 2007, p. 316). Realizing that this was a hoax, Mithradates began to prepare, thinking that the war could start again (Arslan, 2007, p. 316). First, The King, who wanted to use the civil war in Rome, wanted to ally with General Sertorius, who was in the territory of Hispania at the time and wanted to bring Rome under his rule (Livius, Periochae, p. 93.3). In his proposal, he demanded that all of Asia Minor be left to him in exchange for the alliance they would make and that Rome disband the administration of the eyelets he had established in Asia Minor (Magie, 1950, p. 322). He added that if he accepted the offer, Sertorius would send him 40 pieces of ships to be given ermine, along with three thousand pieces of gold (Magie, 1950, p. 323). Sertorius, on the other hand, accepted the offer, despite the opposing view of the Senate, which he created himself. In October of the leave of Asia Minor to Mithradates, he sent Marcus Marius, one of his talented Generals, to Pontus to train
61
Mithradates ' armies and become the King's advisor on military matters (Magie, 1950, p. 323).
Mithradates had suffered heavy defeats after his battles with Rome. However, these defeats gave him great experience (Arslan, 2007, p. 311). Mithradates realized that he had to reorganize the army of Pontus if he wanted to defeat his enemy in a war with Rome. Thus, he took care to prepare an army that could oppose the Roman armies, and thanks to his senior general Marius, he was able to mobilize the Pontus Army from head to toe (Arslan, 2007, p. 311). In addition, he continued his war preparations quickly and prepared his Navy in a short time, providing durable timbers. In addition, various war machines, catapults and siege instruments were produced for use in the Pontus Army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 69). In addition, fresh forces from Chalybes, Armenians, Scythians, Taurians, Achaeans, Heniochi, Leucosyrians and Amazons were organized, increasing the availability of the army, (Appian, Mithradates, p. 69), and from the Lower Danube tribes, he gathered in his army Warriors consisting of Bastarnians, Sarmatians and Thracians (Magie, 1950, p. 323). Thus, Mithradates' Army became a giant army consisting of 140 thousand infantry, 16 thousand horsemen and hundreds of scythed chariots, and was prepared for a great war with Rome (Appian, Mithradates, p. 69; Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 7.3).
Nicomedes IV Philopator, King of Bithynia, died of old age in 75/74 BC (Arslan, 2007, pp. 311-312), because he had no heir, he bequeathed all his lands and wealth to Rome (Livius, Periochae, p. 93.2). The Roman Senate, on the other hand, became a neighbor with the Kingdom of Pontus, quickly turning Bithynia into an state (Arslan, 2007, p. 307). Later, Marcus Aurelius cotta was sent to the governorship of Bithynia, and Lucius Lucullus to Asia Minor to protect Asia Minor against the armies of Mithradates (Arslan, 2007, p. 308). Senate had done all it could to protect Asia
62
Minor from Mithradates by giving Lucullus ' order an army of 30 thousand Legionnaires and two thousand cavalry (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 8.5). Although both sides had prepared for what would be an inevitable war, there was no indication that the war would begin in the middle (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 188). It was only with the death of Nicomedes, The Last King of Bithynia, that the land of Bithynia was left to Rome for no reason that Mithradates was the cause of war (Arslan, 2007, p. 307). But his main goal was to make him forget his previous failures by invading Asia Minor again and to regain his lost prestige (Magie, 1950, p. 322). So the fact that the land of Bithynia was in the hands of the Roman Republic was reason enough for the war. Thus, he marched to Bithynia with his large army, which he had gathered without expecting any movement from the Roman armies (Appian, Mithradates, p. 70).
Cotta, learning that Mithradates had come upon him with a large army, took refuge in Chalcedon (Kadıkoy) with his forces instead of facing him as soon as he heard of Mithradates' advance (Appian, Mithradates, p. 70). Lucullus, on the other hand, learned that Mithradates had marched to Bithynia, moving from Ephesus with his army under his command to Bithynia (Arslan, 2007, p. 316). On the one hand, he sent a letter to Cotta, who was at Chalcedon, ordering him not to encounter Mithradates no matter what, but to defend Chalcedon until he arrived with the troops he had gathered (Memnon, p. 37.2). Cotta, however, was confident that Lucullus would triumph over Mithradates and confiscate the prize. So when he found out that Lucullus had come here, he wanted to turn it into an opportunity (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 8.1). Cotta led raids against Mithradates by land and sea, but he was forced to retreat to Chalcedon, suffering heavy defeats against Mithradates' Army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 71). Cotta, who had lost 4 thousand soldiers, 60 ships and crews as a result of his defeat, retreated to Chalcedon, realizing that he could not hold on to
63
Mithradates, and put Lucullus on hold (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 8.1). Thus, the lands of Bithynia again fell into the hands of Mithradates until Chalcedon.
After the adoption of the Treaty of Dardanus, the dominion of Asia Minor passed back to Rome. Then Roman tax refugees came to Asia Minor without wasting time and continued their exploitation where they left off (Arslan, 2007, p. 316). Although hundreds of thousands of people living in Asia Minor had submitted to the rule of Rome, they hoped that one day they would get out of this situation. He remembered this hope again when Mithradates captured Bithynia, adopting Mithradates as a saviour (Magie, 1950, p. 325). Because the fact that Mithradates set foot in Bithynia in all its glory was greeted with joy by the locals, and the locals, tired of the oppression of the Romans, hailed the Pontus Army as the Savior (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 7.5). Mithradates, King of Pontus, had recaptured Bithynia from head to toe before Lucullus arrived in Bithynia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 71; Arslan, 2007, p. 316). When news of the disaster at Chalcedon reached Lucullus, the Roman army was on the banks of the Sangarius (Sakarya) River (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 77). Lucullus immediately met with his generals and decided what to do. Because Lucullus ' generals and Archelaus of Pontus argued that Mithradates should assess his absence in Pontus and that if he captured Pontus soon, he could defeat Mithradates without a fight (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 8.3). According to Lucullus, however, the Romans present at Chalcedon had to be saved. When addressing his generals, he stated that it was more valuable to save the life of a Roman than to seize the enemy's territory (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 77). After the meeting, he moved to Chalcedon (Kadıköy) to meet Mithradates.
Lucullus experienced brief bewilderment when he saw Mithradates' Army. Ultimately, Mithradates' army was considerably outnumbered and cavalry from the
64
Roman armies (Arslan, 2007, p. 320). Thus, instead of fighting Mithradates, he considered cutting off his army's supply routes, leaving Mithradates in a difficult position (Plutarch, Luculllus, pp. 8.7-8). While this was happening in Lucullus ' camp, Mithradates decided that Chalcedon (Kadıköy) was insignificant, and when he heard that Lucullus was approaching, he marched with his army on Cyzicus (Erdek) (Arslan, 2007, p. 318). Lucullus, on the other hand, followed Mithradates ' Army from afar, taking positions in Southern Bithynia, and had to settle for small attacks during the passage of Mithradates with cavalry troops (Magie, 1950, p. 326). On the one hand, he interrogated the Pontus soldiers he had captured, obtaining information about the strength of Mithradates' Army (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 8.8). When Mithradates marched with his huge army, many cities opened their doors to Mithradates.
Thus, during his March, cities such as Nicaea (Iznik), Prusa (Bursa), Prusias (Gemlik) were personally surrendered by the armies of Pontus (Magie, 1950, p. 326). Later, Mithradates, who had come before Cyzicus, began preparations for the siege. The reason why Mithradates wanted to take the city of Cyzicus was strategic. Because the city of Cyzicus had sided with the Romans in the Battle of Sulla and Mithradates and betrayed Mithradates. Also for Mithradates, Cyzicus was important in that it was the gateway to Asia Minor (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 78). In addition, with the capture of Cyzicus, the Pontus Navy could comfortably open to the Aegean Sea, while the ports of Cyzicus would become an outpost for the Pontus forward forces (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 78). That's why Cyzicus had to be taken. As Mithradates continued his attacks, Lucullus came to Cyzicus with his army and camped in a town called Thracia, a remote settlement from Mithradates' Army (Arslan, 2007, p. 322). Thus, he would comfortably follow Mithradates' siege of Cyzicus, cutting off all roads to Cyzicus, leaving Mithradates in a difficult position (Magie, 1950, p. 327).
65
Although Mithradates repeatedly attacked the city of Cyzicus with various siege instruments and weapons that he had built before the start of the war, he was unable to capture the city of Cyzicus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 73) First, he besieged the city from both land and sea. He then blockaded the ports of Cyzicus with the Pontus Navy, which at that time was opened to Propontis (Marmara Sea) (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 9.3). As the siege of Cyzicus continued, Lucullus also regularly battered the Pontus army, holding all roads to prevent the army from supplying supplies. Thus, a large army of Pontus set out to find food, was ambushed by Lucullus near the river Rhyndacus (Orhaneli) (Appian, Mithradates, p. 75). Under Lucullus ' strict pursuit, the Pontus army disbanded and fled, and a large number of Pontus soldiers were put to the sword until they fled to the Pontus camp. Likewise, a large force sent by Mithradates to the west of Cyzicus was defeated by Lucullus ' commander named Mamercus (Arslan, 2007, p. 323). Despite the long siege, Mithradates was unable to capture Cyzicus. As winter pressed on, the Pontus army fell into a serious shortage of supplies, as aid from the sea was cut off. Mithradates, on the other hand, realized that he could not capture Cyzicus, and had to leave Cyzicus with his Navy (Appian, Mithradates, p. 76) sent the rest of the Pontus army to Pontus by land. However, a large contingent under the command of the Roman General Marius and Hermaeus caused the Pontus army to take refuge in Lampsacus (Lapseki), inflicting heavy losses on the Pontus Army (Magie, 1950, p. 330). Meanwhile, Lucullus, following his generals on foot, united with his troops and besieged the Pontus army, which he decisively pursued, at Lampsacus. Later, Mithradates saved the Pontus army, which had taken refuge in Lampsacus, from Lucullus' hands at the last moment with the ships he had sent (Appian, Mithradates, p. 76). Thus, the siege of Cyzicus failed. Mithradates tried to rally the Pontus army again in Nicomedeia (Kocaeli) (Livius,
66
Periochae, p. 95.3). Lucullus, on the other hand, was greeted with joy at Cyzicus with his army. After a short stay here, he sailed to Hellespont to prepare a large fleet (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 12.1).
The Roman navy suffered a crushing defeat during Mithradates' siege of Chalcedon, while the remaining ships were captured by Mithradates' troops (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 86). Therefore, Lucullus, who did not have a Navy, was able to assemble a small navy, albeit in a short time. Triarius, one of Lucullus ' generals, who opened up to Propontis with the Navy collected by Lucullus, recaptured cities such as Prusias and Cius, which Mithradates captured before the siege of Cyzicus (Arslan, 2007, p. 336). He then invaded Nicaea, which was abandoned by the garrison of Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 77). Mithradates, on the other hand, was in Nicomedeia (Kocaeli) to regroup his army, which had dispersed in various areas after the siege of Cyzicus, suffering heavy losses (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 88). Learning that Mithradates had regrouped in Nicomedeia, Lucullus quickly arrived at Propontis with his army and Navy, making some preparations to prevent the king from fleeing to Pontos (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 13.1). Lucullus' Navy’s capture of Prusias and Cius reached Mithradates, who was in Nicomedeia at the time. Realizing that Lucullus was coming straight at him, the King immediately completed his preparations and sailed towards Pontus (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 86). But by that time, Mithradates, who had suffered heavy defeats in battles, had been defeated by various disasters this time. As she sailed towards Pontos, a great storm occurred (Appian, Mithradates, p. 78), this storm also lost about 10 thousand soldiers and 60 ships of parts. His own ship was also heavily damaged by the storm, and he reached Sinope, although difficult, with the help of pirate ships located off Pontos by chance at the time (Appian, Mithradates, p.
67
78). However, these defeats by Mithradates led to his retreat from Bithynia and the end of Pontos' dominance in the seas (Arslan, 2007, p. 340).
With the retreat of Mithradates to Pontos, Lucullus held a council meeting in the summer of 72 BC (Magie, 1950, p. 332). This council also included Roman senators and Roman nobles, with the exception of Lucullus and his generals (Magie, 1950, p. 332). Lucullus and his generals, who had a say in the council, wanted to attack Mithradates by taking action as soon as possible. But opponents wanted the Roman army not to be fought in a geography like Pontus, which has rugged terrain and usually consists of mountainous areas. Lucullus, on the other hand, knew that it was impossible to attack Pontus without the approval of the council and that the Senate's approval must be absolute in order to pursue Mithradates. Because Sulla, one of the Roman generals, issued a decree after his wars with Mithradates, forbidding generals in the states ruled by Rome to wage war on the Kings of other countries and plunder their lands by using his own initiatives without the permission of the Senate and the people (Arslan, 2007, s. 281). In contrast, the council, which experienced great reckoning and controversy, announced its final decision and ordered Lucullus to enter the territory of Pontus and eliminate the King of Pontus, Mithradates Eupator, regardless of what happened (Arslan, 2007, pp. 342-343). Thus, Lucullus, who soon took 30 thousand Legionnaires with him, moved towards Pontus with his army, which numbered 60 thousand, along with the mercenaries he had gathered from Bithynia and Galatia (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 14.1).
Mithradates was at Heracleia Pontike (Eregli) when he learned that Lucullus had set out with his army (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 86). The King proceeded to Amisos, where he requested help from his son-in-law Tigranes, King of Armenia, and his son Machares, King of the Cimmerian Bosphorus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 78). On
68
the one hand, he attempted to reorganize the army of Pontus to fight Lucullus. Lucullus, who entered Pontus with his army, captured the rich villages of Pontos, which had not experienced any destruction during the Roman wars of Mithradates, one by one, enslaved the young and old who lived here and obtained large spoils (Appian, Mithradates, p. 78). Mithradates, on the other hand, did not find any of the help he had hoped for. Because the heavy defeats of the king in each battle shook the trust of his allies in him (Arslan, 2007, p. 345). So much so that even the Scythians, who had never spared their help during the Mithradates – Roman wars and sent a significant number of their soldiers to fight under Mithradates, left Mithradates alone in this war (Appian, Mithradates, p. 78). And even his commander, Diocles, whom he sent to collect soldiers from the Scythians, failed to make a deal with the Scythians, and he sided with Lucullus with money and gifts (Appian, Mithradates, p. 78). When Mithradates realized that he could not get help, he still managed to gather a new army of 40 thousand infantry and 4 thousand horsemen to fight Lucullus in a short time (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 15.1).
In the camp of Mithradates, Lucullus, despite all the obstacles of Mithradates, reached the river Iris (Yesilirmak) with his army and besieged the cities of Amisos and Themiskyra from both tributaries (Appian, Mithradates, p. 79). However, thanks to the soldiers and supplies sent by Mithradates by sea, the city resisted Lucullus ' soldiers for a long time (Magie, 1950, p. 334). Seeing the capture and looting of the cities in Pontus one by one, the King kept his army waiting for a long time in Cabeira (Niksar), thinking that his soldiers were not yet strong enough to confront Lucullus (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 87). Thus, instead of constantly fleeing, Mithradates would gather his armies and confront Lucullus (Arslan, 2007, p. 349).
69
By the summer of 71 BC, Lucullus left his generals, Murena, with his two legions, at the sieges of Amisos and Themiskyra, and quickly set out for Cabeira. When Lucullus marched on Cabeira, he was accompanied by 40 thousand infantry and four thousand cavalries (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 15.1). He put forward his cavalry primarily for reconnaissance purposes. However, the mounted troops under Pomponius were destroyed by the vanguard troops of Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 79). Pomponius, on the other hand, was soon brought before Mithradates and imprisoned (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 15.1). When this situation reached Lucullus' camp, it was decided not to engage in a battle with the king, considering that the Pontus cavalry could cause the Romans a great problem (Magie, 1950, p. 334). Instead of inviting Mithradates to the traditional Battle of the square, Lucullus would meet him in the mountains and deep slopes, thus breaking the cavalry superiority of the Pontus Army (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 15.1) (Arslan, 2007, p. 351). Thus, Lucullus, who with his troops retreated to the mountains and deep valleys, began to wait here for Mithradates, King of Pontus (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 88). Mithradates, who had conquered the plain with his armies, would drive Lucullus into the barren mountains to try to prevent him from receiving food aid (Magie, 1950, p. 335). Because he used a similar strategy against Mithradates at the siege of Lucullus Cyzicus and was successful (Appian, Mithradates, p. 80). And the Roman armies had never been short of food until now. Because in battles with Mithradates, they could easily afford their food from the west of Asia Minor, with the advantage that they were always outnumbered. Mithradates had severely starved the Roman army with this plan. This situation would have become such that desertions from the Roman army had begun, and Lucullus ' condition had gradually deteriorated (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 15.5). Julius, wanting to take control of the situation, ordered his commanders to supply food
70
by sending Sornatius to Cappadocia (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 90). However, this army was almost destroyed by the Pontus cavalry. Lucullus then sent his general, named Hadrianus, with a large army, to Cappadocia to gather supplies (Appian, Mithradates, p. 80). After a long journey through a secret path, guided by a hunter named Artemidoros, he retreated to the mountains of Paryadres (Kackar Mountains), so as not to be circled by Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 80; Arslan, 2007, p. 352).
The Pontus army was in no way able to stop Hadrianus from supplying Julius with supplies. Because the King of Pontus deployed a large detachment to ambush Hadrian in a narrow pass (Appian, Mithradates, p. 80). Hadrian, however, cautiously continued on his way, as he knew that the liberation of the Roman army depended on these provisions. Because he also knew the superiority of the Pontus cavalry forces, he drew the Pontus Cavalry to the mountainous lands (Magie, 1950, p. 335). So Hadrian's tactic worked, and the Pontus detachment was forced to retreat to the camp, suffering heavy losses. Hadrian's arrival at Lucullus as a great commander caused great unease in the Pontus camp. Mithradates, on the other hand, tried to make the defeat small in order to improve the morale of his soldiers and made serious efforts to prevent his soldiers from deserting in this difficult war against the Romans (Arslan, 2006, s. 355). Eventually, the defeat of the cavalry by the Romans ended the superiority of the Pontus Army (Arslan, 2007, p. 356). Thus, Mithradates, realizing that he had lost the war psychologically, began preparations unaware of the Army, thinking that it would be more appropriate for his army to retreat to a safe area of Pontus so that he could achieve a decisive victory over Lucullus. But as he planned to tell his troops of the possible retreat the next morning, he wanted to evacuate the army's weights in advance, along with freight cars and animals (Magie, 1950, p. 336). This situation was perceived by the Pontus soldiers as the King had abandoned them. A general panic
71
occurred in the Pontus Army (Arslan, 2007, p. 356). The soldiers soon began to disperse, not listening to their commanders, and began to plunder the King's treasures, killing Mithradates' henchmen and bodyguards (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 17). In the darkness, there was almost chaos in the Pontus camp, and the Pontus soldiers began to run a looting race with each other (Arslan, 2007, p. 356). Mithradates, who experienced a brief shock when his generals announced the defeat, made great efforts to put the soldiers in order, but did not succeed, understanding the seriousness of the situation and retreated south with his loyal soldiers to save his life (Appian, Mithradates, p. 81). At the dawn of the next day, Lucullus, realizing the chaos in the Pontus camp, moved quickly and arrived at the Pontus camp, and achieved a great victory by putting the Pontus soldiers, who had not managed to escape and were still engaged in looting, to the sword. He even captured the treasures that the Pontian soldiers had fought each other with since Nightfall without losing a single soldier (Appian, Mithradates, p. 82).
After a difficult journey, Mithradates, who managed to escape by taking advantage of the chaos, arrived at the Comana of Pontus with the soldiers attached to him, where he tried to re-gather the soldiers who had escaped from his army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 82). Then, not staying here long, he followed the coastline and moved towards Armenia (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 19.1). While Mithradates was on his way to take refuge with Tigranes, King of Armenia, with 2 thousand horsemen, he sent the eunuch Bacchus to kill his wives, brothers and daughters at the castle of Pharnacia, where the Royal Palace was located, to prevent the Royal Family from falling into the hands of Lucullus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 82). Because he knew well that if his family fell into the hands of Lucullus, it would be displayed in a victory march in Rome. So the eunuch Bacchus went to Pharnacia and had the entire royal family
72
killed, except for Nysa, the sister of Mithradates (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 89). Mithradates, on the other hand, regretted the unfortunate fate of his family and reached Armenia with 2 thousand horsemen. Lucullus, who was at Cabeira at the time, sent Appius Claudius Pulcher, one of his envoys to Tigranes, King of Armenia, while he himself came to Amisos to resume the siege of Amisos from where he left off (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 19.1). When Lucullus reached Amisos, Mithradates ' son Machares, King of Bosphorus, sent his envoys to Lucullus, informing him that he wanted to establish friendly relations (Appian, Mithradates, p. 83). Because the reason the siege of Amisos lasted so long was the help sent by Machares. In the peace he wanted to make with Lucullus, he reported that if he was left as King of Bosphorus, they could live in peace with Rome. As a sign of friendship, he cut off the aid he sent to the city of Amisos. After Machares' aid was cut off, the city of Amisos fell, unable to hold on any longer (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 19).
The Romans entered the city, no matter who came in front of them, began to kill and loot, looting the spoils they found (Arslan, 2007, p. 364). This situation has become such that very few people have survived in the city of Amisos. Even the Roman General Lucullus felt great sadness for the brutality he witnessed and the slaughter and looting that took place before his eyes, and deep grief covered him (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 19). To make up for his mistake, he wanted to restore the city to its former state, and at his own expense had the city repaired and restored (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 91). He also ordered his soldiers to rest in Pontus for another expedition against Mithradates and prepare for a new expedition (Arslan, 2007, p. 365). Lucullus, who sent his general Marcus Aurelius Cotta to capture the city of Heracleia Pontike, sent Triarius, the distinguished Admiral of the Roman navy, to besiege Heracleia from the sea after cotta could not take Heracleia for a long time.
73
Thus, in 71/70 BC, Triarius captured the city of Heracleia (Magie, 1950, p. 341) he himself understood that it was impossible to completely capture the Kingdom of Pontus without capturing Mithradates, and began preparations for his expedition towards Armenia (Magie, 1950, p. 336).
Lucullus 'Messenger Publius Clodius reached Armenia and was admitted to Tigranes' presence. Without further ado, he said that Tigranes requested Mithradates, King of Pontus, came here to surrender him and that they wanted to expose Mithradates at the victory procession to be held in Rome (Arslan, 2007, p. 374). Kral King Tigranes, on the other hand, refused this request, stating that he could not betray his father-in-law as his son-in-law and that despite many difficulties, he would not surrender the king, whom even Rome could not subjugate (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 21) (Appian, Mithradates, p. 84). He added that if Rome declared war on him for such a reason, he would defend Armenia with his armies (Arslan, 2007, p. 375). When this news reached Lucullus, he first decided to open war, but he came to Sinope, the capital of the Kingdom of Pontus, thinking that such an expedition could cause problems without fully occupying the strategic cities of Pontus (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 23). The city was a very important place for Mithradates. Because the King of Pontus was born here, the city of Sinope was restored to be a Metropolis (Arslan, 2007, pp. 383-384). Lucullus was unable to take the city, although he repeatedly besieged it by land and sea, so he began to develop different strategies (Orostius, Hist. VI, p. 3.2). At this time, Machares, King of Bosphorus, was trying to make a deal with him by sending a crown made of gold to Lucullus. With the support of the Senate, the negotiations ended positively, and Machares received assurances from Lucullus to remain on the throne of the Bosphorus Kingdom (Arslan, 2007, pp. 385-386). He then cut off the grain he regularly sent to Sinope, ensuring that food was given free of
74
charge to the Roman army (Livius, p. 98). Thus deprived of food, the city was soon captured by Lucullus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 83). Like Sinope, he shared the same fate in Amasia (Amasya). Thus, the vast majority of Pontus was captured, and it was decided to create a province of Pontus attached to Rome (Keaveney, Lucullus, p. 95).
Tigranes, King of Armenia, had not yet accepted Mithradates in his presence and did not want to meet and meet him under various pretexts. This was because he did not deign to meet her because of past hostilities. But King Tigranes, who succumbed to the unease caused by the entry of the Romans into his territory, called his father-in-law Mithradates, who was a relative by marriage, to his presence (Arslan, 2007, p. 389). Thus, instead of keeping Mithradates, King of Pontus, as a prisoner in Armenia, he accepted him into his palace with ceremonial accompaniment (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 22.1). Now, both Kings have known each other from good to good, and they have decided to act together, linking past disagreements to betrayals made to them (Arslan, 2007, pp. 390-391).
Lucullus, leaving Sornatius to defend Pontus with 6 thousand soldiers, quickly moved towards Armenia himself (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 24.1). So he reached Armenia to capture Mithradates with his two Legions and 500 Horsemen under his command (Appian, Mithradates, p. 84). King Tigranes, on the other hand, ordered his general Mithrobarzanes to drive Lucullus out of Armenia with 3 thousand horsemen to prevent Lucullus' march (Appian, Mithradates, p. 84). Lucullus, on the other hand, took Galatian and Cappadocia troops with him and assigned his generals Sextilius to meet Mithrobarzenes (Arslan, 2007, p. 394). Sextilius met Mithrobarzanes with a unit of 1600 horsemen and infantry, Mithrobarzanes was killed and the troops of Armenia were defeated as a result of short-term clashes (Arslan, 2007, p. 394). Lucullus then continued his march, first crossing Tigris, and then quickly walking towards
75
Tigranocerta, the capital of Tigranes, trying to catch the city unprepared (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 24.6). Tigranes, on the other hand, was in Tigranocerta when he learned that Lucullus had come upon him with his army. He quickly retreated into Armenia and called all the vassal Kings and kingdoms associated with him to his camp for his war with Lucullus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 84). Meanwhile, Sextilius quickly arrived in front of Tigranokerta to capture what was left of Mithrobarzanes ' army and besieged the city (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85). Receiving the news that Tigranocerta was besieged, Tigranes, along with 250 thousand infantry and 50 thousand cavalries under his command, east of Armenia, moved from his camp to drive Lucullus out of Armenia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85).
Lucullus, on the other hand, came to Tigranocerta, where he joined with Sextilius, and the siege of Tigranocerta intensified (Arslan, 2007, p. 395). Before Tigranes and Lucullus faced off, Mithradates, both sending his messengers and writing letters, warned Tigranes not to engage in a battle with the Romans (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 26.3). At the same time, he sent Taxiles, one of his generals, to Tigranes, King of Armenia, with soldiers attached to him (Arslan, 2007, p. 400). But despite all his insistence, Tigranes, along with his army, decided to wage a challenging war with Lucullus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85). Tigranes ' army was so crowded and intimidating that the king and his army, seeing the number of Romans, began to mock them (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 27). So much so that in Lucullus, he encountered Tigranes, not taking 6 thousand soldiers that Tigranocerta had left for his defence. Tigranes, who compared his own soldiers with the soldiers of the Roman army, whose numbers were about 10 thousand, thought that he would get an easy victory (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85). It is rumoured that Lucullus said the following words when he confronted him with so little force:
76
‘’If they are coming to send messengers, they are many; if they are coming to fight, they are few.’’
Later, the two armies met near Tigranocerta and went into battle formation. Lucullus had begun to wait for the army of Armenia by capturing a high hill. And then, when he realized that there were slaves carrying weights on the right rear wing of the army of Armenia, he almost destroyed the soldiers who were in shambles with a raid that he organized. The fact that the soldiers who barely saved their lives from here also panicked the Armenian soldiers who ran towards them made the army of Armenia flee (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85). So they escaped into Armenia, taking a heavy defeat. But instead of attempting to plunder, the Roman army led the army of Armenia to 120 Stades (about 25 km), chasing them all to the sword (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85). In the end, the loss of the Armenians amounted to 100 thousand, while the loss of the Romans consisted of 5 dead and 100 wounded (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 28.6). Lucullus, after disbanding the army of Armenia, ordered his army to return for looting (Appian, Mithradates, p. 85). Tigranes, King of Armenia, managed to escape. Mithradates received the news of the disaster from the Armenian soldiers who fled the defeat while on the move to join Tigranes with their soldiers (Arslan, 2007, p. 403). Later, he found Tigranes, King of Armenia, and comforted him. He encouraged him by stating that he should gather a new army against the Romans, this time they would win a decisive victory against the Romans (Arslan, 2007, pp. 403-404).
When Lucullus returned to Tigranocerta, it was inevitable that he would obtain a large prize. In addition, he received congratulatory messages from many experienced and high-ranking generals, and without wasting much time, the King of Armenia continued the siege of Tigranocerta, the capital of Tigranes (Plutarch,
77
Luculllus, p. 28.7). By October 69 BC, Lucullus, who had tightened the siege, with the help of the Hellenes trapped in the city, took over the city and took the general attack (Arslan, 2007, p. 404). Thus, Tigranocerta, one of the richest cities in Armenia, was plundered and a large loot obtained by the Romans (Appian, Mithradates, p. 86). Lucullus then moved to Gordyene to spend the winter destroying Tigranocerta (Arslan, 2007, p. 406). On the one hand, he asked Sornatius and his generals at Pontos for troops to complete the Armenia expedition and sent orders to join him (Appian, Mithradates, p. 30.3). But when the commanders he sent arrived at Pontus, he saw that his soldiers who were here were disobedient and out of order (Arslan, 2007, p. 408). So Lucullus realized that his troops at Pontos would not benefit. The reason Lucullus wanted new troops was that Mithradates was still alive. Because he knew it was impossible to secure Asia Minor before he died. During the Roman camp, Mithradates gathered the bravest soldiers he had called from almost all over Armenia, bringing together about 70 thousand soldiers decisively. He divided them into sections according to the Roman army order and handed them over to the officers of the army of Pontos for their training (Appian, Mithradates, p. 87). Thus, he prepared experienced and well-trained soldiers against the fighting techniques of the Romans for the next Roman attack (Arslan, 2007, p. 407).
Mithradates had assembled a large army of Armenian and Pontus soldiers, thus preventing Lucullus from supplying supplies, and wanted to drive them out of Armenia with sudden raids. The troops under Lucullus, on the other hand, faced the troops commanded by Mithradates many times. But the superiority of the Pontos Army in mounted troops and the hit-and-run tactics they applied left Lucullus in a difficult position (Arslan, 2007, p. 410). Lucullus, on the other hand, realized that the armies of Pontus and Armenia were trying to wear him out, and decided to march to
78
Artaxata, the Royal City of Tigranes, King of Armenia, to force them into the war (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 31.2). Tigranes, not wanting to harm his family, went down to the plain to meet Lucullus, and Lucullus got what he wanted. Worried that his family would be harmed and panicked, Tigranes refused to act with Mithradates, facing Lucullus to wage a challenging war. But the Roman army, known for its success in the battles of the Square, had once again achieved a great victory against Tigranes' Army of Armenia (Magie, 1950, p. 345). After the defeat, Tigranes was forced to retreat again towards the interior of Armenia (Appian, Mithradates, p. 88). Although Lucullus won the battle, he continued to march towards (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 32.1).
Lucullus ' soldiers were tired of this endless chase and wars (Arslan, 2007, p. 414). In addition, the suppression of the winter season and the extremely cold climate of the basin of Armenia caused unrest in the Roman army (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 32.1). Thus, the Roman soldiers informed them that they would stop following their general, Lucullus. Lucullus, on the other hand, had given up on further progress and had to retreat towards Mesopotamia (Magie, 1950, p. 345). Lucullus ' retreat to the South mobilized Mithradates and Tigranes. Because they both acted quickly to reclaim the land they had lost and achieved their ambitions (Arslan, 2007, p. 416). Tigranes took complete control of the territory of Armenia, and Mithradates made efforts to restore the Pontus King to his former power by giving auxiliary forces (Magie, 1950, p. 346; Arslan, 2007, p. 416). In this way, everything would go back to Lucullus ' political situation before he arrived in Asia Minor.
Jealous of Lucullus' great victories, some Roman generals and senators tried to humiliate him in front of the Senate, claiming that Lucullus had a love of power and wealth (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 33.1). They spread that Lucullus had dominated Cilichia, Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Galatia, Pontos, Phasis and finally Armenia in Asia
79
Minor, thereby capturing all the riches of the cities, while he planned to rob them again, allowing him to escape rather than subjugate and capture the Kings of the region (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 33). As a result, sparks were replaced by flames, and Lucullus ' reputation was severely damaged both in the army and in the Senate. In the Senate early in 68 BC, he decreed that the Protectorate of Asia Minor be taken from him to silence opposition to Lucullus (Magie, 1950, p. 346). It was also decided that the soldiers under Lucullus ' command should be retired and never fought again (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 33.5). The decision was welcomed by the military when the developments decided in the Senate reached Lucullus ' camp. However, the return of Mithradates to Pontus had changed this situation. Lucullus ' soldiers responded to the request of the Roman soldiers in Pontus for urgent help and quickly moved north to save their friends, although briefly abandoning demobilization (Magie, 1950, p. 347).
Mithradates, along with his accompanying Pontus soldiers, re-dominated many regions, starting from the east of Pontus (Arslan, 2007, p. 418). The Roman soldiers who were in Pontus at the time did not make any preparations, as they were sure that Lucullus would return victorious (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, pp. 9.1-2). But Lucullus 'move to the south and Mithradates' sudden arrival in the region and sudden raids and defeats decimated Roman troops, caused a complete panic among the Romans (Appian, Mithradates, pp. 89-90). The Pontus army, which he personally led, achieved many victories against the Romans. But a skirmish also left Mithradates seriously wounded, but still did not leave his army leaderless. When Mithradates heard that Lucullus ' Army was very close, he moved east of Pontus to meet Tigranes, King of Armenia, who had assembled his camp as he planned to deal the final blow to Lucullus (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 35). He made the Wells and crops unusable in the regions where the Pontus Army passed (Arslan, 2007, p. 430). Thus, it became
80
difficult for Lucullus to follow Mithradates for a long time. Meanwhile, Tigranes, King of Armenia, had quickly sent his son-in-law, King of Pontos, to the east of Pontus in order to help Mithradates, King of Pontos (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 14.1). This army inflicted a great defeat on the pioneers of Lucullus, who, scattered, chased Mithradates. So Lucullus realized that Tigranes was coming towards them with a large army, thanks to the soldiers who had taken refuge in his camp. This led to a revolt in the Roman camp (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 14.2). Also, the Roman General Manius Glabrio, who had been appointed Governor of Bithynia to replace Lucullus, said that he had been blamed by the Senate for unnecessarily prolonging the war by sending his envoys to Lucullus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 90). As a result, it was reported that he was dismissed by the Senate and should immediately demobilize his army (Arslan, 2007, p. 431). It was reported that those who did not comply with this order would be confiscated or even punished by the decision of the Senate (Appian, Mithradates, p. 90). Lucullus, on the other hand, came to Cappadocia with his soldiers to meet Tigranes, King of Armenia (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 35.3). But the Roman army once again revolted. The soldiers no longer accepted Lucullus ' rule. They said that he should fight the army of Armenia himself, stating that they would neither go a step further nor clash with the enemy (Arslan, 2007, p. 432). Thus, the army under Lucullus was demobilized, and Lucullus was reduced to the status of an ordinary Roman citizen (Appian, Mithradates, p. 91). After attacking Cappadocia with his army, Tigranes crossed the Euprates River and destroyed Cappadocia (Magie, 1950, p. 349). Mithradates, on the other hand, recaptured all the territories he had almost lost after the demobilization of the Roman soldiers (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 17.1). Then they advanced to Cappadocia with their army and plundered Cappadocia together with Tigranes, King of Armenia (Arslan, 2007, p. 433). King I Of Cappadocia
81
Ariobarzanes, on the other hand, was deposed for the sixth time and sent to Rome (Plutarch, Luculllus, p. 35.2). After Mithradates recaptured Bithynia and Asia Minor, Lucullus completed his mission in Asia Minor by defeating Mithradates many times in a short period of time and ensuring that Asia Minor remained under Roman rule again (Magie, 1950, p. 350). Therefore, following the orders of the Senate, he first withdrew to Galatia and then returned to Rome (Arslan, 2007, p. 434). As a result, one of the Mithradates – Roman wars ended for a shorter time, while Mithradates, who had returned to Pontus, was waiting for the next Roman general to be sent by the Senate. The Senate, despite all negative views, sent Gnaeus Pompeius to Asia Minor for a war against Mithradates and Tigranes (Livius, Periochae, p. 100.1). Thus, Gnaeus Pompeius, moving towards Asia Minor, soon began preparations for the war with Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 91).
5.4 Mithradates – Roman Wars ‘’Pompeius' expedition to Asia Minor and betrayal to Mithradates’’ (BC 66 – BC 63)
Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, also known as Pompey the Great, was asked to be sent to Asia Minor to completely eliminate Mithradates, King of Pontus, one of the greatest enemies of the Roman Senate (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 42). He was therefore promoted to the rank of general in the war to be waged against Mithradates and Tigranes by the law proposal of Gaius Manilius, one of the Roman senators, in 66 BC (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 42) (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 30.1). At the same time, he was given all the powers that a Roman general could get, and all the opportunities were mobilized to end this war completely. Subsequently, by orders sent by the Senate, All Kings, city rulers in Asia Minor, even All Romans in Asia Minor, were ordered to help Pompeius at all costs in the battle with Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 94). In addition, control of the provinces of Phrygia, Lycaonia, Galatia, Cappadocia,
82
Cilicia, Colchis and Armenia was given to Pompeius to support him in his war with Mithradates (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 30.1). Thus, the Romans aimed to eliminate Mithradates, which they could not bring to their knees as a result of long wars (Arslan, 2007, p. 447). So Pompeius set out for Asia Minor.
Mithradates had suffered great losses due to his battles with Lucullus, captured Pontos, but could not even find provisions to feed his army in Pontus, which was devastated by the wars (Appian, Mithradates, p. 97). So much so that the people were ravaged by the wars in Pontos, and as a result of the massacres and attacks of the Romans, many cities in Pontos were destroyed (Arslan, 2007, p. 449). He needed time both to rally his army and to capture the Roman-dominated cities of Pontus. When he learned that Pompeius was more moderate and peaceful than Lucullus, he immediately sent his envoys to negotiate peace (Appian, Mithradates, p. 98). So he could get the time he wanted and continue his endless war against Rome. Pompeius, on the other hand, addressed the envoys who came before him, informed them that they would make peace if they agreed to immediately lay down their weapons, surrender the Roman refugees in Mithradates' camp, and unconditional surrender him (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, pp. 45.3-4). On the one hand, knowing that his offer would not be accepted, he began preparations and soon formed a huge army of 50 thousand Legionnaires (Magie, 1950, p. 353). He soon proceeded to march against Mithradates 'army, without waiting for the messengers' response (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 32.9).
Pompeius realized that Mithradates had no time for any preparation due to his battles with Lucullus and needed all the help he could. So he sent envoys to Phraates, King of Parthia, hoping to cut off this support. He invited Pharaates to choose his side in his battle with Mithradates, reminding him of what might happen if he supported Mithradates, and to form an alliance against Mithradates in a possible war (Livius,
83
Periochae, p. 100.4). This would have worked, since Mithradates, King of Pontos, knew that his forces were insufficient, he asked for help from the surrounding kingdoms, but when he did not get enough help, he did not appear before Pompeius for a long time (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 47.1). Instead, he would cut off the supply routes of the Roman army, as Lucullus had done at the siege of Cyzicus, leaving Pompeius in a difficult position. In this way, he would beat up Pompeius ' outnumbered army, and hungry and thirsty soldiers would pressure Pompeius to return (Magie, 1950, p. 354). But Pompeius had taken precautions in advance to avoid such a situation. He planned so that the army would not be short of supplies, and he made sure that wherever the Roman army went, the supplies they needed would come after them (Appian, Mithradates, p. 99). Mithradates, on the other hand, thought that Pompeius would be in a difficult situation by closing wells on the roads he passed and setting the villages on fire. Finally, Pompeius captured Mithradates in a position of deep valleys and fortified Hills. Mithradates had captured a fortified hill and completed his preparations for the attack of the Roman army (Arslan, 2007, p. 458). Pompeius, on the other hand, initially did not attempt, fearing that an attack on Mithradates, who had also set up camp on a fortified hill, would lead to great losses (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 47.3). About forty-five days of mutual fighting took place, with both sides unable to prevail over each other. But later, contrary to expectations, there was a shortage of supplies in Mithradates ' Army. Mithradates was forced to retreat to the border of Armenia, abandoning Lucullus ' plan and quietly breaking the blockade of the Roman army one night, when the Roman army fell short of supplies, which he wanted to reduce (Plutarch, Pompey, pp. 32.2-3). Learning that Mithradates had fled quickly, Pompeius wanted to quickly follow the king and capture him without crossing the Euphrates River to turn it into an opportunity (Arslan, 2007, p. 458). At
84
the dawn of the next day, the pioneers of the Roman army and the remaining troops of Mithradates caught up with each other. But instead of accidentally fighting the Roman army, Mithradates wanted to fight in such a way that he retreated to a wooded area and gave the back of the Pontus army to a hillside (Arslan, 2007, p. 458). Because he had experienced the success of the Roman army in the battles of the square. After a short time, the main part of the Roman army was also stationed opposite Mithradates and moved to the order of battle. Thus, the Roman army and the army of Pontos faced off in a narrow strait (Appian, Mithradates, p. 100). The fate of the battle was determined by the soldiers of Pontus, who were up the slope, running down shouting and wanting to participate in the frantic battle. Because at that time, the soldiers who were down the slope thought that they had been defeated when they saw the soldiers running madly towards them, and they were afraid, thinking that they had been defeated by the Romans. Later, panic and turmoil dominated the entire Pontos army, everyone in the army broke their ranks, and the entire Pontus army began to flee, dropping its weapons (Appian, Mithradates, p. 100). About 10 thousand Pontus soldiers were killed as a result of the attack of the Roman mounted troops who were after them, as the Pontus soldiers who were trying to escape defenselessly began to flee into the forested areas (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 32.7). When the Romans also captured the Pontus camp, Mithradates barely saved his life with his soldiers protecting him and took refuge in the Fortress of Sinoria1 (Appian, Mithradates, p. 101) (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 32.7). The Roman army once again captured the spoils of the great victory over Mithradates (Appian, Mithradates, p. 101). Mithradates gave his soldiers who took refuge with him, saving their lives and rewarded them with a year's salary for their loyalty. He also distributed various gifts to his officers and generals for
1 It is estimated to be one of the castles built by Mithradates to hide his treasure, located within the borders of ‘’Bayburt’’ province (Strabon, XII, s. 3.28 c555).
85
their bravery. In case of possible capture, he also did not neglect to give his soldiers a bottle of poison in order to be cautious just in case (Arslan, 2007, p. 462). He then went on to Armenia, the land of Tigranes, travelling only at night, not staying long in Sinoria, as he thought the Romans would follow him (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 47.1).
Leaving Sinoria, Mithradates sought asylum by writing a letter to Tigranes informing him of his defeat (Magie, 1950, p. 355). However, Tigranes not only forbade Mithradates from entering Armenia, but also chained the Pontos emissaries sent by Mithradates, and even put up a hundred Talent prize for the capture of Mithradates (Magie, 1950, p. 355). This was because Tigranes thought that his son Tigranes and Mithradates were trying to dethrone him by collaborating (Arslan, 2007, pp. 448-449). Tigranes learned that his son often corresponded with his grandfather, Mithradates. When Mithradates realized that he could not take refuge in Armenia, he moved north of Pontus to Colchis in no time, thinking that he had no choice (Appian, Mithradates, p. 101).
Advancing through the mountains of northern Armenia, Mithradates reached Colchis by crossing the steep mountains, although he was blocked by the Iberians living here when he arrived at the Apsaras River (Appian, Mithradates, p. 101). The King's intention was to take refuge with his son Machares, King of the Bosphorus of Cimmeria, and to regain the kingdom of Pontos, which he had lost, in due course (Appian, Mithradates, p. 101; Arslan, 2007, p. 465).
Pompeius, on the other hand, quickly moved towards Colchis as soon as he learned that Mithradates had left Sinoria (Orosius, Hist. VI, p. 4.7). When he arrived in the city of Phasis, he established a colony here, demobilizing wounded soldiers and retirees in his army (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 50.3). Later, he set out to follow
86
Mithradates. But at this time, Tigranes, son of Tigranes, King of Armenia, who rebelled against his father and wanted to depose him, came to Pompeius ' camp and asked for help to seize the throne of Armenia (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 33.1). Pompeius, on the other hand, wanted to take this opportunityBecause after the defeat of Mithradates, the goal was to dominate Armenia. Thus, he abandoned his pursuit of Mithradates and set out to capture Artaxata, the capital of the Kingdom of Armenia (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, pp. 51.1-2). Tigranes was frightened as Pompey advanced towards the city. Thus, the city surrendered. Indeed, Pompeius was described as more moderate and positive compared to the Roman General (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 52.2). Tigranes wanted to turn it into an opportunity. He came to the Roman camp and knelt before Pompeius, reporting his allegiance (Plutarch, Pompey, s. 33.3). Pompeius greeted him like a king, preventing him from kneeling before Tigranes. He forgave him, saying what would happen to him if he repeated the mistakes he had made in the past (Mayor, 2009, pp. 329-330). Thus he left the Kingdom of Armenia to his rule again (Livius, Periochae, p. 101.2). From Tigranes, he received six thousand talents as war reparations. Despite the wars with Rome and its many lost treasures, Tigranes agreed to ally himself with the Romans (Arslan, 2007, p. 467). Tigranes' son, Tigranes, wanted to flee when it became clear that his claim to the throne was unfair. However, he was captured by Pompeius ' soldiers and sent to Rome (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 53.4). In this way, the authority gap created by the demobilization of the Army led by Lucullus in Asia Minor was eliminated. Because Pompeius first expelled the Old King Mithradates from the region of Pontos, and then connected Tigranes, King of Armenia, to him. Eventually, he reorganized the balance of power in Asia Minor in a way that once again served the interests of the Romans (Arslan, 2007, p.
87
470). Now, however, he set out again to follow Mithradates and moved to the mountains of the Caucasus (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 34.1).
Pompeius was aware that in order to capture Mithradates, he had to cross the Albanians and Iberians' peoples living behind the Caucasus Mountains (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 34.1). So, after crossing the mountains of the Caucasus, he came to the edge of the Cyrnus River to spend the winter season (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 53.5). Although the Albanians first allowed Pompeius and his army to pass, they decided to make a sudden raid, thinking that they would set out to destroy themselves when they survived the winter season (Arslan, 2007, p. 471) After that, the Albanian King Oroises with his troops of about 40 thousand men made a sudden raid on the camps where the Romans were located (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 34.2). However, irregular troops from Albania against the regular armies of Rome had little chance. After mutual skirmishes, Oroises, King of Albania, who had suffered great losses, was forced to make a truce with Pompeius (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 54.1). So Pompeius also got the time he needed to spend the winter.
Pompeius perceived Mithradates as a threat to have armies in great danger behind him during his pursuit. So, in the spring of 65 BC, he mobilized with his army and entered the territory of the Iberians, defeating King Artokes (Arslan, 2006, s. 472). And then he went after Mithradates again. His goal was to land again at Colchis and follow the Black Sea coast to reach the Kingdom of Bosphorus (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 3.1). But when he found out that Oroises, King of Albania, was coming at him with a great force, while he was on the road with his army, he went straight to him and defeated Oroises for a second time (Plutarch, Pompey, pp. 35.2-3). At this time, after a difficult journey, Mithradates, who had reached the Kingdom of Bosphorus, tried to eliminate him due to the betrayal of his son Machares, King of
88
Bosphorus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 102). Machares, on the other hand, was appalled that his father had reached the Kingdom of Bosphorus in such a short time. He fled towards Chersonesus, leaving the throne with his treasures, which he soon collected (Appian, Mithradates, p. 102). He also had his Navy burned for fear of being followed, for fear of his father's violence. As soon as the King heard that his son Machares had escaped, he went after Machares with the ships he had assembled. Learning that his father had come upon him, Machares was first abandoned by his men, and then committed suicide (Appian, Mithradates, p. 102). Thus, Mithradates took full control of the Crimea peninsula and began preparations for the next war with Rome (Magie, 1950, p. 359) the King's goal now was to completely eliminate Rome by crossing the Alps from Thrace to Macedonia with a strong army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 102). When news that Mithradates had reached the Crimea peninsula arrived at Pompeius ' camp, the Roman army had reached Colchis (Appian, Mithradates, p. 102).
Pompeius understood that it was now difficult to follow Mithradates. Because he did not want to wear out his army, which had already come too far. Thus, he decided to return, both because of the mountainous terrain and deep valleys, and because of the difficulty that mountain tribes posed to him (Arslan, 2007, p. 477). He signed a peace treaty with all the peoples and tribes that had settled up to the Caspian Sea Frontier (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 5.1). He then moved along the Armenia road to the Fortress of Sinoria, where the treasures of Mithradates were located (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 36). In the castle of Sinoria was Stronice, the father of Mithradates ' favourite wife Monima (Arslan, 2007, p. 481). Stronice, who guarded the treasury of Mithradates here, was also governor of the city of Sinoria (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 36). Learning that Pompeius was coming towards him, Stronice opened the gates of the
89
castle of Sinoria to the Romans, as he could not accept that King Mithradates had left him here and fled to the Crimea peninsula (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 5.5). Thus, Pompeius, who also seized the treasure of Mithradates, also moved to Amisos, taking with him the manuscripts and valuable works of art belonging to Mithradates (Arslan, 2007, p. 483). When he reached amisos, Pompeius, very upset by the destruction that Lucullus had inflicted on the city, repaired the city and distributed various gifts to the people. After that, he attempted to reorganize the province of Pontos, now a province of the Roman Republic (Livius, Periochae, p. 102.1). He first took control of all his merchant ships in the Black Sea, as he thought it would leave Mithradates in a difficult position (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 39). He then sent a large fleet to the Crimea peninsula to follow the movements of Mithradates to secure the Black Sea (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 39). Thus, the Roman fleet here blockaded Cimmerian Bosphorus and prevented Mithradates from crossing to Pontos (Arslan, 2007, p. 484). After making the necessary arrangements, he turned his direction to the South, rewarding the soldiers and commanders associated with him with various gifts (Magie, 1950, p. 360).
While this was happening in Asia Minor, Mithradates learned that Pompeius was advancing towards Syria, and began to prepare his army for a great and arduous journey (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 11). His goal this time was to descend through the Alps to Rome and eliminate Rome and its Senate, following the route followed by Hannibal, who had previously caused Rome great problems like himself and was considered Rome's greatest enemy (Appian, Mithradates, p. 109) (Cassius Dio, XXXVI, p. 11). For this, he tried to attract the Gaul tribes, one of the tribes hostile to Rome, who were also pure in the face of the Romans in Hannibal's expedition (Appian, Mithradates, p. 109). On the one hand, he built a large army of Scythian
90
Warriors attached to him (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 11). The King's grand plan of attack was due to the fact that he wanted to fight one last duel as a soldier, rather than bringing Rome and the Senate to their knees (Arslan, 2007, p. 503). Because the King had grown old, and now he had nowhere to run if he lost any war. Thus, instead of dying in his bed as an old man, he wanted to fight Rome one last time on horseback, dying proudly as a soldier if necessary (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 11). But Mithradates was not as loved as before. Because when Bosphorus came to his kingdom, he made many people here uneasy.
This was because Mithradates made large increases in every tax item to realize his great dream, and recruited many people from the public into compulsory military service (Magie, 1950, p. 364). And the Romans' strict control of merchant ships in the Black Sea brought the trade to an end, and it was the last straw against Mithradates in the Bosphorus Kingdom (Appian, Mithradates, p. 109).
First aware of this situation, King Mithradates' successor, II. It was Pharnaces. Pharnaces, who had a reputation and reputation in the army, understood that such a great plan of attack would be the end of his father, Mithradates, as well as the end of himself (Appian, Mithradates, p. 110). Therefore, Bosphorus supported those who planned assassinations against his father, thinking that the kingdom would be more moderate and smoothly governed under his rule (Livius, Periochae, p. 102.2). Not content with this, Pharnaces led a group of soldiers and led the assassination against the King (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 12). However, when Mithradates learned of the plot against him, many criminals were identified and brutally murdered (Magie, 1950, p. 363). The assassination attempt against him by his son Pharnaces, who was with him in almost all his wars against the Romans, was enough to drive Mithradates mad (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 12). Already, Machares, King of Bosphorus, had rebelled
91
against him. Now the only heir to the throne wanted to punish him violently, not indifferent to the betrayal of his son Pharnaces. But he abandoned this decision when he said that the murder of his most valuable son before such a great expedition by the King's aides would increase the unrest of the army (Appian, Mithradates, p. 110). Thus, the King forgave him by abandoning his decision to kill his son. But Pharnaces, who knew his father's unforgiving character, continued his rebellious attitude because he knew that he would be killed without hesitation when the time came (Arslan, 2007, p. 503). He went to the camp of Roman refugees in the Pontos Army just before the Roman expedition, stating that they did not need to attack their homeland and that there was no need for such a large expedition if they supported him (Arslan, 2007, p. 503). He then went to the camp of the Scythians and made various promises and encouraged the army of Pontos to revolt (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 12; Arslan, 2007, pp. 503-504).
The next morning, thousands of people marching to the palace where Mithradates was staying with a great noise rebelled, saying that a young king should lead them, rather than being led by an old King who did not hesitate to kill even his own children by word of mouth (Appian, Mithradates, p. 110). Mithradates, angry that a crowded group came to the front of the palace and shouted ‘’King Pharnaces’’, jumped on his horse and went to the rebels with a special unit next to him and wanted to restrain them (Arslan, 2007, p. 504). But when he joined the rebellion against him with the soldiers he brought with him, he helplessly retreated to his palace with a few special guards (Orostius, Hist. VI, p. 5; Arslan, 2007, p. 504).
The King's greatest fear was that he would be surrendered to the Romans (Appian, Mithradates, p. 111). So he sent his envoys to Pharnaces to convey that he wanted to get out of the Bosphorus Kingdom safely, not angry with him (Appian,
92
Mithradates, p. 111). But when the messengers sent by the King sided with Pharnaces and none of them returned, the King became aware of the extent of the rebellion. So he went up to a high hill of the palace where he was staying and watched what happened. He saw Pharnaces crowned and proclaimed king by the hands of the rebels (Arslan, 2007, p. 505). Realizing that his reign had come to an end, Mithradates preferred to die rather than fall into the hands of the Romans (Appian, Mithradates, p. 111). He first poisoned all his wives and children (Orostius, Hist. VI, p. 5). He then wished to get rid of this embarrassing situation in which he fell by drinking all the remaining poisons (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 13.1). But even if Mithradates' body developed immunity to all kinds of poisons and considered increasing the effect of the poison, the poison was not enough to kill the King (Magie, 1950, p. 364) After that, one of his most loyal soldiers, his special guard, was sent to Bitocus of Gaul (Livius, Periochae, p. 102.3) ordered him to kill himself (Arslan, 2007, p. 506). Thus, Bitocus of Gaul, fulfilling the King's last wish, ended his life by killing King Mithradates VI of Pontos, Dionysus Eupator, in one move (Appian, Mithradates, p. 110).
After Mithradates 'death, the rebels who entered, when they saw Mithradates' lifeless body, opened deep wounds on the King's body with the thought of revenge, making the King's face unrecognizable (Arslan, 2007, p. 506). Despite this, Mithradates, who was sent on his last journey with a glorious ceremony, was dressed in gold armour and brought to the Port of Bosphorus to be sent to Pontos with various gifts (Appian, Mithradates, p. 111). He was seventy-two years old when he died (Orostius, Hist. VI, p. 5) Mithradates, who was sent to the territory of Pontos with a great ceremony as the eighth and last ruler of the Kingdom of Pontos (Arslan, 2007, p. 506).
93
News of Mithradates' death reached Pompeius while he was at Petra (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 42.1). Messengers who reached the Roman camp arrived at the camp by attaching decorated laurels, a sign of victory, to the tip of Spears (Arslan, 2007, p. 507). It meant a sign of victory for the Romans. Thus, when the Romans, seeing the sign of victory, learned that the messengers had come from Pontos, they quickly ran to the tent of their general Pompeius (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 42). Pompeius, on the other hand, went to a high place and opened the letter from Pontos and reported the Gospel to his soldiers (Arslan, 2007, p. 507). Pompeius loudly announced to his soldiers that Mithradates, King of Pontos, had died, while his successor Pharnaces offered his allegiance to the Romans (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 42.5). When the Romans heard that Mithradates, King of Pontos, had died, they cried joy and had fun for days in honour of Rome's liberation from a great enemy (Appian, Mithradates, p. 113). After the death of Mithradates, Pompeius completed his preparations and reached Amisos on a long march, moving from Petra (Magie, 1950, p. 364). Apart from his father's funeral, Pharnaces delivered Roman refugees who were in the Pontos camps at the time, Hellenic rebels who had previously rebelled against Rome, and many gifts to Pompeius. Writing a letter addressed to Pompeius, he informed him that he wanted to reign as King of Bosphorus (Appian, Mithradates, p. 113). Pompeius recognized Pharnaces as a vassal king attached to Rome, as a taken of gratitude for saving himself from Mithradates, one of Rome's greatest enemies (Appian, Mithradates, p. 113) (Plutarch, Pompey, pp. 42.2-3). Thus he allowed Pharnaces to reign in the Kingdom of Bosphorus, declaring him an ally and friend of Rome (Magie, 1950, p. 365).
Pompeius personally took care of the burial of Mithradates, covering the funeral costs from his own pocket (Appian, Mithradates, p. 113). He arranged for the king to be buried, like his ancestors, in the Royal cemetery belonging to the Pontos
94
dynasty, located in Sinope (Plutarch, Pompey, p. 42.3). After the burial of Mithradates, he set out to finish the conquests he had left unfinished at Pontos. Thus, he went over many cities and took them under his rule (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 20.1). Later, he returned to Hellas and from there to Rome (Cassius Dio, XXXVII, p. 20; Arslan, 2007, p. 490).
Mithradates, who the Romans had not been able to subjugate in Asia Minor for a long time, managed to survive, although he suffered major defeats despite forty years of wars. However, upon his death after his son's betrayal, the Mithradates – Roman wars ended, and Asia Minor mostly fell into the hands of the Roman Republic. Thus, many kings in Asia Minor became vassals of Rome in Asia Minor, which allowed him to rule in part. Accordingly, he ascended the throne of Cappadocia to the throne of II. Ariobarzanes Philopator (Arslan, 2007, p. 492), and the throne of Galatia was passed by Deiotaros for his help to Pompeius (Arslan, 2007, p. 492). The Kingdom of Pontos, on the other hand, ended with the death of Mithradates and his son Pharnaces recognizing the vassalship of Rome (Appian, Mithradates, p. 113).
95
6. II. PHARNACES – CAESAR WAR AND THE END OF THE DYNASTY
On the death of Mithradates in 63 BC, his son II. Pharnaces was recognized by the Romans as the ruler of the Bosphorus Kingdom and was allowed to rule and become king, albeit in a small part of his father's Kingdom (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 446). But Pompeius 'decision to make the kingdoms of Bithynia, Cappadocia and Pontus the provinces of Rome in Asia Minor undermined Pharnaces' legal rights in the Kingdom of Pontus. So at every opportunity, he was waiting for the opportunity to revive his father Mithradates VI's Kingdom of Pontus, and like his father, he wanted to dominate Asia Minor. He got the opportunity he was looking for shortly after his father's death. He decried the civil war between two Roman great generals, Gnaeus Pompeius and Gaius Julius Caesar. Pharnaces, soon completing his preparations, set out to capture Pontus (Suetonius, Caesar, s. 35). As both generals were in Egypt at the time, and their bitter struggle took place far from Pontos, Pharnaces took Armenia Minor, Colchis and Cappadocia for the first time (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 446). Not content with this, the king ruled Sinope, the former capital of the Kingdom of Pontus, and then Amisos (Appian, Mithradates, p. 120). Thus, Pharnaces, who recaptured his father's Kingdom, inflicted great torture and persecution on the Romans, who first caused this situation. Even the cities he captured even wanted Roman citizens to be castrated (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 446). Although Caesar, the Roman General who was in Egypt at the time, was aware of Pharnaces ' actions, he did not take any action due to the struggle he experienced in Egypt (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 46.1). Instead, in December 48 BC, he commissioned one of his generals, Domitius Calvinus, to stop Pharnaces (Appian, Mithradates, p. 120; Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 446). On the other hand, Roman troops in Asia Minor were ordered to gather at Comana in Pontus to support Calvinus (Magie, 1950, p. 409). Calvinus, the Roman General, formed a large
96
army with a small number of his soldiers, as well as soldiers who joined him in Comana, moving towards Pharnaces, who was at Nicopolis (Koyhisar) at the time (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 46.2). Pharnaces 'Pontus army and Calvinus' Roman army met at Nicopolis. Pharnaces defeated the Roman army of inexperienced and assembled troops in a short time (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 446). Later, he went on to seize the lands his father had ruled. Moving quickly, Pharnaces, moving towards Bithynia and Asia Minor, reached as far as Bosphorus (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 46.4). Pharnaces' heavy defeat of the Roman army led by Calvinus caused a shock in Caesar's camp, which was in Egypt at the time (Magie, 1950, p. 410). Caesar, who had left the administration of Egypt to Cleopatra, soon marched north with his three Legions to expel Pharnaces from Asia Minor (Suetonius, Caesar, s. 35). Caesar, quickly reaching Cappadocia in July 47 BC via Antioch (Antioch) and Tarsus road (Magie, 1950, p. 410).
After a long journey, Caesar reached Asia Minor and besieged Mazaka (Kayseri), belonging to the Kingdom of Cappadocia, which supported his arch-enemy Pompeius (Magie, 1950, p. 410). Caesar thus wanted, on the one hand, to drive Pharnaces II, son of King Mithradates, out of Asia Minor, and on the other hand, to draw the King of Cappadocia with him and spread his war with Pompeius to Asia Minor (Magie, 1950, p. 410). Because Ariobarzanes, King of Cappadocia, was of great benefit to Pompeius in the wars with Mithradates. So Caesar, like Pompeius, wanted to use the King of Cappadocia in his war with Pharnaces. In this way, Caesar, who also made a strategic move before his war with Pharnaces, soon captured the city and brought the King of Cappadocia to his knees (Magie, 1950, pp. 410-411) (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 447). Later, he marched to Armenia for his war with Pharnaces (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 47).
97
Meanwhile, Caesar, who sent Roman envoys to the King of Pontus, asked Pharnaces to withdraw immediately from Asia Minor and return to the Kingdom of Bosphorus (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 47). Pharnaces, on the other hand, when he heard that Caesar had reached Armenia, immediately sent his own envoys to Caesar before the Roman envoys reached him, and wanted to offer peace (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 447). But no peace agreement could be reached when Pharnaces was reminded of the brutal torture he inflicted on the Romans in the cities of Pontus, which he captured in Asia Minor (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 447). Thus, both armies met at Zela (Zile) to fight. Pharnaces, with the outbreak of the war, put forward his cavalry and scythed chariots, inflicting severe losses on the Romans (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 47). However, when the Roman legionaries entered the battlefield, cavalry and scythed chariots suffered a great defeat in an instant (Cassius Dio, XLII, p. 47.5). Unable to make any impact against the Roman legionnaires in the battle, which lasted about four hours, the Pontus Infantry also fled towards their camp. Pharnaces, on the other hand, was forced to retreat to Sinope with about a thousand of his cavalry after his defeat (Appian, Mithradates, p. 120). The move that ended the war ended when Roman soldiers almost destroyed what was left of the Pontus Army. A large plunder was seized by the Romans with the destruction of the Pontus Infantry drawn from the war (Magie, 1950, p. 412). Caesar, on the other hand, told his friend Amantius, who was in Rome at the time, about his victory, saying that the war had been difficult, but he knew how to win. ‘’Veni, Vidi, Vici " so; I came, I saw, and I conquered (Plutarch, Life of Caesar, s. 50.3) (Magie, 1950, p. 412). Caesar also attributed the victory of the war with such an easy and overwhelming superiority to the weakness of the Pontus soldiers, stressing that Pompeius ' victories over Mithradates were therefore insignificant (Suetonius, Caesar, s. 35.2). Domitius left Calvinus with an army at Pontos, first to
98
Bithynia and then to Rome (Cassius Dio, XLII, pp. 48.3-4). Domitius left Calvinus with an army at Pontos, first to Bithynia and then to Rome (Suetonius, Caesar, s. 36) (Magie, 1950, p. 413). Following his defeat, Pharnaces fled to the Kingdom of Bosphorus with the troops beside him (Appian, Mithradates, p. 120). His goal was to gather his troops again soon and capture Asia Minor. So much so that as soon as Bosphorus reached his kingdom, a small force consisting of Scythians and Sarmatians formed one (Appian, Mithradates, p. 120). However, Asander, who knew the opportunity for Pharnaces to go to Asia Minor and considered taking over the Bosphorus Kingdom, managed to kill Pharnaces in a small skirmish by preventing Pharnaces from entering the Bosphorus Kingdom (Appian, Mithradates, p. 120) (Goldsworthy, 2006, p. 447). Thus, with the death of Pharnaces II, the last member of the Kingdom of Pontus, the Pontus Dynasty came to an end (Appian, Mithradates, p. 121.).
99
CONCLUSION
Pontus has lived under the rule of different civilizations throughout history. The region, which accepted its first settlers with the incursions of Scythia and Cimmers, then came under the rule of the Persian Empire, the first large-scale Empire. After that, the Hellenistic colonists came to the region and engaged in trade activities that enriched the region, and one after the other, large cities were created. Then, when Alexander the Great came to the region and won victories, the Persian Empire withdrew from the historical scene. Thus, the Hellenes competed with each other to bring the riches of the Pontus region to their own country. Here it should be noted that Pontus does not belong entirely to the Hellenes. Because the local peoples of Scythia, Cimmer and Persian origin, who still lived in this region, continued to live here (Strabon, VII, p. 3.6). But the Hellenes, engaged in trade, had a say in the management of the cities in Pontus, using the power given by trade, which was seen throughout the history of civilization as the easiest way to enrich themselves.
The Black Sea has always been the home of different cultures and local peoples. That's why managing regions with different nations has become one of the manager's biggest problems. Since the beginning of civilizations, Kings have resorted to different strategies to ensure that people living in areas they dominate obey them and do not rebel against them. They achieved this by claiming that their right to rule by using the religious motives of peoples came from a divine power or that they were descended from Kings in whose rule they lived. One of the most striking examples of this is undoubtedly the Kingdom of Pontus. From the foundation of the kingdom, the members of the dynasty, on the one hand, based their lineage on the Achamenids to connect the people of Persian origin living in the region, on the other hand, they made Greek the official language and the coins they
100
printed appealed to all segments using the Zeus motif. Thus, they assumed the patronage of both societies and legitimized their kingdoms. They also implemented a different strategy through marriage, as they were forced to maintain their claims in this region after the dissolution of Alexander's Empire. According to this, the Kings of Pontus married girls from the Kingdom of Seleucus, whose origin was Hellenistic, under this pretext they showed their origin as Hellenistic and once again showed that they had a say in the lands they ruled. But another interesting situation arose when the Kingdom of Seleucus, a large kingdom, gave girls to the Kingdom of Pontus, which had not yet been established and could not even have a say in the domination of Asia Minor. Because compared to both kingdoms, there seems to be a big difference in terms of managed people. But as it turns out, the Seleucid Kingdom, which used a similar strategy, gave girls to the Pontus dynasty of Persian origin, or even took girls from the dynasty, in order to show this to the Persian societies in the regions they ruled. Another example of this situation is Mithradates Eupator himself, who gave the Kingdom of Pontus its heyday. According to Plutarch, one of the ancient writers (Plutarch, Moralia, VII.624) Mithradates was still a baby in arson, a lightning bolt fell on the side of the crib. Because similar stories have been used in Persian traditions to tell the Royal Family, emphasizing that cosmic power comes from the sky (Bagnall, 2013, pp. 325-444). A similar belief exists in the Hellenes. Lightning strikes on the side of the cradle are considered a symbol of faith for the Hellenes (Christodoulou, 2017, p. 8).
It is apparent that the Pontus Dynasty had enough say in Asia Minor. Because, during the countless wars that came in succession, none of the cities dominated by the Hellenic population rebelled, and on the contrary, they always defended their king. Hereby, they survived in Asia Minor by struggling for many
101
years and had a significant impact on Roman history. In many years of wars, they were not destroyed by any internal threat, despite countless betrayals and heavy defeats that will not be forgotten. Another reason for this was that the members of the dynasty were able to rule the Kingdom of Pontus together without going into war with each other. This example of solidity clearly shows us that the Kingdom of Pontus, despite its rulers of Persian origin, lived for many years as a kingdom with mixed cultures in Asia Minor, gathering many different nations under one roof. Therefore, this situation gave them a great advantage in the wars they entered with the Roman Republic, which would later become their ancient enemy.
In conclusion, the Kingdom of Pontus became the Roman Republic's greatest enemy in Asia Minor. They challenged the Roman Republic and became a Kingdom in Asia Minor, if not for very long. Later, the Pontus Dynasty fought for forty years with Rome's best and highly skilled generals, such as Cornelius Sulla, Lucius Lucullus and Gnaeus Pompeius, and after these wars, Gaius Julius Caesar brought the end of the dynasty.
102
REFERENCES
Acun, F. (1999). Tarih Boyunca Pontus. Milli Mücadelede Giresun, 19-34.
Andreasyan, H. D. (1969). Karadenı̇z Kıyıları Tarı̇h ve Coğrafyası 1817-1819.
App. (=Appianus, Rhomaika)
Appian's Roman History. With an English Translation by H. WHITE I-IV Cambridge, Mass-London 1912-1913 The Loeb Classical Library
Arslan, M. (2005). Arrianus'un Karadeniz Seyahati, Antik Kaynaklar Dizisi: I. Odin Yayıncılık.
Arslan, M. (2006). Pontos'tan Karadeniz'e Bir Adlandırmanın Ardındaki Önyargılar, Varsayımlar ve Gerçekler. Antalya: OLBA XIV.
Arslan, M. (2007). Memnon, Herakleia Pontike Tarihi. Odin Yayıncılık.
Arslan, M. (2007). Mithradates IV Eupotor Roma'nın Büyük Düşmanı, Eskiçağ Tarih Dizisi. Antalya: Odin Yayıncılık.
Bagnall, R. S. (2013). The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Wiley Online Library.
Bosworth & Wheatley. (1998). The Origins of the Pontic House. Cambridge University Press, London.
Carpenter, R. (1948). The Greek Penetration of the Black Sea. Oxford University Press, London
Christodoulou, S. (2017). The Pontic Kingdom Under Mithridates VI. Balkan Studies, Athens.
103
Cicero, M. T. (XXV). The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C. D. Yonge, B. A. London. Henry G. Bohn, York Street, Covent Garden. 1856.
Dio Cass. (=Cassius Dio, Roman History)
Roman History, With and English Translation by E. Carry I-IX. The Loeb Classical Library London 1914-1927
Diod. (=Diodorus Sicilus, Bibliotheke Historike)
Diodorus of Sicily. With an English Translation by R.M.Geer. The Loeb Classical Library London 1947
Erciyas, D. (2001). Studies in the Archaeology of Hellenistic Pontus: The Settlements, Monuments, and Coinage of Mithradates VI and His Predecessors.
Foss, C. (1988). The Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos. Anthony Bryer, David Winfield. In Speculum (Vol. 63, Issue 2).
Gabelko, O. (2009). The Dynastic History of the Hellenistic Monarchies of Asia Minor According to the Chronography of George Synkellos.
Goldsworthy, A. (2006). Caesar; Life of a Colossus. Yale University Press.
Hdt. (=Heredotos, Historiae)
With an English Translation by A. D. GODLEY I-IV. The Loeb Classical Library London 1926
Hom. II. (=Homeros, The Iliad)
With an English Translation A. ERHAT-A KADIR. Istanbul 1993
Iust. (=Marcus Iulianus Iustinus, Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi)
104
Epitome of te Philippic history of Pompeus Trogus. With and English Translation by J. C. YARDLEY Atlanta, GA 1994
Keaveney, A. (1992). Lucullus. A Life, London New York 1992.
Keaveney, A. (1982b ). Sulla, The Last Republican. London & Canberra 1982.
Kınacı, M. (2016). Mithradates Hanedanlığı'nda I. Pharnakes Dönemi. Ankara.
King, C. (2004). The Black Sea: A History. Oxford University Press.
Xen. anab. (=Ksenophon, Anabasis)
Hellenica. With and English Translation by C.L. BROWNSON and O. J. TOOD I-III. London, New York 1961 The Loeb Classical Library
Laertius, D. (1972). Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. R.D. Hicks. Cambridge.. 1972 (First published 1925) Harvard University Press
Lightfoot, J. L. (2004). Dionysius Periegetes, Description of the Known World with Introduction, Text,Translation, and Commentary.
Liv. (=Livius, Ab Urbe Condita), perioch. (=Ab urbe condita librorum periochae)
With an English Translation by B. O. FOSTER I-XIII. London, New York 1919-1951 The Loeb Classical Library
Magie, D. (1950). Roman Rule in Asia Minor: To the End of the Third Century After Christ. Princeton University Press. London
Mayor, Adrienne (2009). The Poison King: The Life and Legend of Mithradates Rome’s Deadliest Enemy. Princeton University Press.
McGing, B. C. (1986). The Foreign Policy of Mithridates VI Eupator, King of Pontus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986a
105
McGing, B. C. (1986). The Kings of Pontus: Some Problems of Identity and Date. Leiden : E.J. Brill, 1986b
Memnon. (22). History of Heracleia Translated from Jacoby's Greek text (FGrH_434).
Mitchell, S. (2004). Doğu ve Batı Arasında Anadolu Hellenistik Çağ’da Attalos ve Mithridates Krallıklarının Paralel Yaşamları, Çev. Turhan Kaçar. Anadolu Araştırmaları Dergisi (Vol. 17, Issue), 140-153.
Moorhouse, A. C. (1940). The Name of the Euxine Pontus. Cambridge University Press
Oros. hist. (=Historiarum adversus paganos libri VII)
Seven Books of History Against the Pagans With English Translation by W. RAYMOND. New York 1936.
Öztürk, Ö. (2011). Pontus: Antikçağ’dan Günümüze Karadeniz’in Etnik ve Siyasi Tarihi. Ankara.
Plin. nat. (=Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Naturalis Historia
Pliny Natural History. With an English Translation by H. R. RACKHAM, W. H. S. JONES, D. E, EICHOLZ I-X. Cambridge London 1938-1971 The Loeb Classical Library
Plut. (=Plutarchos, Bioi Paralleloi)
Plutarch's Lives. With an English Translation by B. PERRIN I-XI. London, New York 1959 The Loeb Classical Library
Plut. mor. (Plutarchos, Moralia)
106
With an English Translation by F. C. BABBITT-W. HELMBOLD I-XIV. London, New York 1928-1967 The Loeb Classical Library
Polyb. (=Polybios, Historial)
The Histories. With an English Translation by W. R. PATON I-VI. Cambridge, London 1922 The Loeb Classical Library
Rufus, Q. C. (1984). The History of Alexander, Translated By John Yardley.
Strab. (=Strabon, Geographica)
The Geograpy of Strabo. With an English Translation by H. L. JONES I-VIII. London 1917-1932 The Loeb Classical Library
Suet. (=Suetonius, De Vitae Caesarum)
The Lives of the Twelve Caesars. Translated by J. C. ROLFE I.I. London 1951 The Loeb Classical Library.
Velleius, P. (II.). The Roman History, Chapter 1-28. Loeb Classical Library.
Woodlock, D. (2014). Hellenism of Asia Minor and Pontos. The Asia Minor and Pontos Hellenic Research Center.
Wroth, W. (1889). A Catalog of the Greek Coins in the British Museum, Pontus, Paphlagonia, Bithynia. London.
Yarshater, E. (2000). The Cambridge History of Iran. New York: Cambridge University Press.