From: george knysh
Message: 66316
Date: 2010-07-13
> --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>originally defected
> > > Plutarch takes Olthacus' murderous intentions as a fact
> > > http://tinyurl.com/25yqmos
> > > whereas Appian is divided between assuming that and assuming
> > > Olcaba's intentions were those he stated himself
> > > http://tinyurl.com/327l7py §79
> > >
> > >
> > > GK: Given what we know of Mithradates' suspicious nature, and
> > > his proclivities towards eliminating unreliable (to his mind)
> > > elements from his entourage, I think the earlier Plutarch
> > > version of Olthaces' motivation is preferable to Appian's
> > > dichotomic musing. I don't see how Olcaba/Olthacus couyld have
> > > survived a return to Mithradates if he had
> > > from him to Lucullus on his own initiative rather than asgoing to defect? That makes no sense. Why
> > > described by Plutarch.
> >
> > On the other hand, if the whole thing had been a preconceived
> > plot, it is difficult to see how Oltacus could have fingered the
> > would-be defector Sobdacus after his return to Mithridates, as
> > Appian states.
> >
> > GK: No difficulty whatever. Sobdacus wasn't "in" on the
> > preconceived plot. Many others had already defected to Lucullus
> > before Olthacus' pseudo-defection. Sobdacus was just unlucky. He
> > decided to defect and contacted Olthacus (then apparently in
> > Lucullus' good graces) He didn't realize Olthacus was Mithradates'
> > agent and paid the price.
>
> So from Mithridates' camp Sobdacus contacted Olthacus in Lucullus'
> camp to tell him he was
> would he do that?Exactly.
>
> GK: There is a vast literature dealing with treason, spying,
> defection, and the myriad of reasons and techniques involved with
> these activities. Who knows (in the absence of specifics in
> Appian)why (and what exactly) Sobdacus did that he is documented as
> doing?
> Maybe he was negotiating for a "defection deal" through a successfulYou could have fooled me.
> prior defector? There could be any of a hundred reasons. I won't
> hazard a guess since I am not writing a novel.
> > ibd.cone (as note 1 seem to imply), and that
> > 'Thereupon the Scythian mounted his horse and went immediately to
> > Mithridates, either because he had plotted against Lucullus and
> > now thought that he was suspected, or because he considered
> > himself insulted and was angry on that account. He exposed to
> > Mithridates another Scythian, named Sobdacus, who was about to
> > desert to Lucullus. Sobdacus was accordingly arrested.'
> >
> >
> > > > 73 BC
> > > > http://www.attalus.org/bc1/year73.html
> > > > Beginning of Third Mithridatic War (- 63 BC)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 63 BC
> > > > http://www.attalus.org/bc1/year63.html
> > > >
> > > > Mithridates VI plans invading Italy
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/32p539j
> > >
> > > GK: He seems to have planned this (initially) in Colchis in the
> > > winter of 66/65: cf. Appian #101. Cf.
> > http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_mithridatic_21.html#%A7101
> >
> > It seems more likely to me that the Bosphorus mentioned was the
> > 'real' Bosphorus, since that is connected with the legend of
> > Hera's travels
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosphorus
> > not the Maeotian
> > Mithridates was accordingly planning a tour around the Black SeaPlease don't agree with me. I hurt myself falling off the chair.
> > and attack the Romans from the rear in Asia Minor.
> >
> > GK: He would probably arrange to attack the Romans everywhere.
>
> Appian, 101
> 'wage war against them from the side of Europe while they were in
> Asia'
>
> GK: You are partly right, in that Appian uses ambiguous
> language here.
> The "Bosphorus" could refer either to the Cimmerian one (in whichUnless
> case "waging war from the side of Europe" could be done from
> Panticapeion (which was in Europe). That is what the beginning of
> Appian's text implies:
> "the idea of making the circuit of the whole Pontic coast, passing
> from Pontus to the Scythians around the Sea of Azov and thus
> arriving at the Bosphorus.[1] He intended to take away the kingdom
> of Machares, his ungrateful son, and confront the Romans once more;
> wage war against them from the side of Europe while they were in
> Asia,"
>
> GK: "the circuit of the whole Pontic coast" as described in
> #101, seems to terminate at the Sea of Azov [cf. "and thus"- the
> terminating point, the "Bosphorus" is "the kingdom of
> Macharus".
> > But here the issue is his plan to invade Italy.He was busy with many schemes, so that is not
>
> And the text talks of a two stage plan:
> 1) get to the sea of Azov, depose his ungrateful son, Machares
> 2) get from there to the Thracian/'real' Bosporus and attack the
> Romans from the rear.
>
> GK: It is point 2 which remains unclear. I agree that as
> described by Appian the "Bosphorus" in #101 seems the "real"
> Bosphorus. But in concrete terms we are not told what Mithridates
> intended after reaching Panticapeion (in Europe) except waging war
> with the Romans.
> He needed to win over many additional allies even for your version,He had already made his way through many 'Scythian' peoples, partly by persuasion, partly by force, according to Appian.
> and there is nothing yet in #101 about that. But we cannot rule outTrue.
> that the specifics of #102 were already in Mithradates' mind
> Once in the Azov country, having accomplished stage 1, heTrue.
> contemplated 'other and more novel exploits', such as attacking
> Italy.
>
> GK: That is formally correct (as described in #102), though if
> we focus on "the whole Euxine" and the (real) Bosphorus of #101 it
> is arguable that the contours of such a plan were already in his
> mind in Colchis.
> > The route painted in Appian#101 was obviously the main thrust.proper
>
> First thrust.
>
> GK: Appian #101 is my mistake. I meant Appian #102.
>
> > ...
> > > > The "Scythians" (Scythians
> > > > and Sarmatians) were independent auxiliaries who had to be"Scythian" quite
> > > > bought off by promises of dynastic alliances (Appian,#108).
> > > > This did not work. It is very clear that apart from "his own
> > > > army" Mithridates intended to draw on the Gauls, whom he had
> > > > been cultivating for some time (#109). He intended to lead his
> > > > large motley crew "through Thrace to Macedonia, through
> > > > Macedonia to Pannonia, and passing over the Alps into Italy"
> > > > (#102)
> > >
> > > You seem to want to imply that Scythians and similar folk (this
> > > is Olthacus/Olcaba's home country, according to Plutarch) could
> > > not be made interested in such a large undertaking.
> > >
> > > GK: The point is that Appian used the term
> > > vaguely. He seems to include ancient Georgians (like thehated these persons, who were all-powerful
> > > Heniochi), Maeotians (like Dardanians and others, usually
> > > subject to the Bosporan kingdom) and occasionally Scythians
> > > proper (whom he confuses with Sarmatians at e.g. ) as well as
> > > Sarmatians. The "Azov country" pertains to the Maeotians
> > > connected politically to Bosporus, like Olthaces' Dardanians,
> > > like Sinds and others listed by Strabo. These are the "princes"
> > > Mithradates initially drafted via dynastic alliances as
> > > described in Appian #102, which you cite here:
> > >
> > > Here is the full quote from Appian Mithridates §102
> > > 'Mithridates finally reached the Azov country, of which there
> > > were many princes, all of whom received him, escorted him, and
> > > exchanged presents with him, on account of the fame of his
> > > deeds, his empire, and his power, which were still not to be
> > > despised. He formed alliances with them in contemplation of
> > > other and more novel exploits, such as marching through Thrace
> > > to Macedonia, through Macedonia to Pannonia, and passing over
> > > the Alps into Italy. With the more powerful of these princes he
> > > cemented the alliance by giving his daughters in marriage.'
> > >
> > > This text does not support your view.
> > >
> > > GK: But Appian #108/109 does. Mithradates needed to cement
> > > alliances with the powerful steppe nomads (Scythians and
> > > Sarmatians) who had earlier supported him. But he was betrayed. Cf. http://www.livius.org/ap-ark/appian/appian_mithridatic_22.html#%A7109
> > >
> > > "Mithridates, observing these frequent defections, and having
> > > suspicions of the army itself, lest it should fail him because
> > > the service was compulsory and the taxes very heavy, and because
> > > soldiers always lack confidence in unlucky commanders, sent some
> > > of his daughters in charge of eunuchs to be married to the
> > > Scythian princes, asking them at the same time to send him
> > > reinforcements as quickly as possible. Five hundred soldiers
> > > accompanied them from his own army. Soon after they left the
> > > presence of Mithridates they killed the eunuchs who were leading
> > > them (for they always
> > > with Mithridates) and conducted the young women to Pompey.plan, supported with Roman gold.
> > >
> > > [§109] Although bereft of so many children and castles and of
> > > his whole kingdom, and in no way fit for war, and although he
> > > could not expect any aid from the Scythians, still no inferior
> > > position, none corresponding to his present misfortunes, even
> > > then found a place in his mind. He proposed to turn his course
> > > to the Gauls, whose friendship he had cultivated a long time for
> > > this purpose, and with them to invade Italy, hoping that many of
> > > the Italians themselves would join him on account of their
> > > hatred of the Romans;"
> >
> > And here you have to argue that none of the many planned
> > contingents went on with the
> >No one has written of any problems, so there aren't any? Word of advice: don't apply for a job in the spy business; that kind of carelessness in risk assessment can cause disasters.
> > GK: That is clear enough from Appian's description of the
> > plan's collapse.
>
> Erh, no.
>
> GK: Erh, yes. The plan was that of Mithridates and of no one
> else.
> > > > The expedition was to start frompolicy.
> > > > Panticapeion (today's Kertch in the Crimean Ukraine).
> > >
> > > I can't find your source for that?
> > >
> > > GK: It's in Appian #107. Mithradates made Panticapeion his
> > > center of operations. He was there in Appian #108, when he was
> > > drafting "his own army" (prior to his unsuccessful appeal to the
> > > steppe nomads) and there is no record of his leaving it.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > > *Mithridates VI gives Olthaces the task of invading Italy.
> > >
>
> > > > GK: Acc. to Appian, the King himself was to lead the army
> > >
> > > Where does he say that?
> > >
> > > > (there is no hint of any delegation in the text).
> > >
> > > I'll make an emendation: Olthaces was to be the leader of the
> > > allied Dandarian/Scythian army / expeditionary force.
> > >
> > > GK: We don't know that.
> >
> > There might have been several such 'Scythian' (in the loose sense)
> > armies, and Olthaces might have commanded only his own Dandarian
> > army, but with financially powerful backers, who knows how many
> > others could be enticed to join.
> >
> > GK: Certainly. But the plan centered on Mithradates. The
> > Dandarians were subjects of the Bosporan Kingdom. They had no
> > independent
> The Bosporan Kingdom was under Pontic kings 108 - 16 BCEsupport. They weren't independent states as to foreign policy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Cimmerian_Bosporus
> Olthacus was a prince of the Dandarii, and the Bosporan kingdom was
> in civil war, so of course they would have their own policy at that
> time.
>
> GK: The only "policy" they would have was that of choosing
> which of the pretenders to the Bosporan throne they were ready to
>
> > > In any case this, "Mithradates' own army", which he organizedDandarii, subjects of Bosporus, did not have an
> > > from Panticapeion, was to be assisted by the steppe nomads, and
> > > (hopefully) Burebista (since Mithradates wished to reach Italy
> > > via Thrace and Pannonia). But they never got started.
> >
> > Not on that path, which any contemporary historian would have
> > noted. But would they have noted a 'Scythian' army/armies moving
> > into Przeworsk? This is the time of the suddenly appearing 'upper
> > layer' there.
> >
> > GK: The plan to invade Italy died with Mithradates.
>
> You don't know that.
>
> GK: It was his plan. There is no record of anyone else having
> such a plan. And the
> independent foreign policy. There is no evidence that the Romans orI remember when I was in New York in 1979 I came across buildings used and marked by Belarussian and Ukrainian organizations claiming to have sole legitimate power in those (very) former countries. And I thought: 'God, won't they learn! What a lost cause' beause I am rather smart and knew that nationalism was on the way out etc etc.
> anyone else wished to dismember the Bosporan Kingdom at any time.
> And the Dandarians, Sinds etc.. were its subjects both before and
> after the Pontus connection.
> > There is no evidence to the contrary.But as you see, I don't. Haha.
>
> There's no literary evidence to any activity north of the Bosporan
> Kingdom at the time.
>
> > BTW you still haven't provided anything concrete about the
> > inventory of the 'upper layer' Przeworsk inhumations of that
> > period. This is crucial if you wish to establish a "Dandarian" or
> > other "Scythian" connection.
> > > allied Dandarian/Scythian army / expeditionary force." And then: "There might have been several such 'Scythian' (in the loose sense)But would they have noted a 'Scythian' army/armies moving
> > armies, and Olthaces might have commanded only his own Dandarian
> > army," And again: "
> > into Przeworsk? This is the time of the suddenly appearing 'upperSo instead of "Haha" you should probably say "Heehaw" (closer to the appropriate braying) (:=))) ******
> > layer' there."
> > I've told you this many times. Otherwise we must fallI'll check it up. I am still waiting, since January, to get the 'golden cemetery' book from the library.
> > back on "Celtic" or other local explanations.
> The stuff they have is Roman. That's the interesting thing.No, only the 'male part' of it. Pottery etc is local.
>
> GK: Where is a description of the whole inventory? Surely you
> don't mean that the entirety of these graves' contents is "Roman"?
> In the princely graves from later centuries, also the one atseems to have overrun Przeworsk at the time.
> Mus^ov, you find battered heirlooms from the 1st century BCE along
> with contemporary Roman stuff, but nothing from the period in
> between. This is what we would expect if Crassus had financed and
> equipped the army which
>Yes.
> GK: That is as good a nonsequitur as any of your previous ones.
> Are you suggesting that all Germanic graves "from later centuries"
> containing "battered heirlooms from the 1rst c. BCE" are evidence of
> Crassus' financierings?
> That is unacceptable as suchAs whuch?
> (without further evidence) to proper historians or archaeologistsBut I'm OK with being an improper historian and archaeologist.
> (but quite all right with novelists)!
> There are many other ways in which such "heirlooms" might haveAs I said, I'll go check. Actually you are in a better position to judge, since Polish and Ukrainian literature is accessible to you.
> reached their final resting place. In any case what is required is a
> better description of the mid-1rst c. BC Przeworsk inhumations. Do
> you have this?
> > > > *Olthaces as leader (*wod-in-) of an army (*wod-)Mithridates' suicide, we don't know.
> > > > *invades Przeworsk by 'Schlieffen plan'
> > > > *going around Burebista's Dacia
> > > >
> > > > GK: The Mithridatian army gathered near Panticapeion, but the
> > > > expedition never got under way. There is no mention of any
> > > > out-movement by anyone.
> > >
> > > Movements in Scythian lands would be beyond the Roman horizon of
> > > interest.
> > >
> > > GK: Appian was certainly interested enough to point out that no
> > > such movement occurred in the steppes (#109)
> >
> > I can't find that in §109?
> >
> > GK: The steppe nomads weren't drawn into the plan.
>
> As a group, yes. But what happened with various contingents after
>
>I recall reading once in, I think it was 'News from the Soviet Union', that Soviet reactors were safe, because they were under proletarian control. End of story (is Homer Simpson a
> > Appian is clear on this.
>
> No, he isn't.
>
> GK: You're consciously distorting my statement. What I said is
> that Appian is clear on the fact that the steppe nomads weren't
> drawn into the plan. As to your words : "what happened with various
> contingents after Mithridates' suicide, we don't know", we can only
> draw (unless we are novelists when anything goes) the obvious
> conclusion all other scholars have: that Mithridates' Italian
> invasion plan died with him. "The various contingents" were a part
> and parcel of that plan. When he died, the princes of the Bosporan
> kingdom recognized Pharnaces. End of story.
>Etc, etc.
> > > > Mithridates VI commits suicide
> > > >
> > > > GK: With the assistance of a Gaulish warrior.
> > >
> > > Named Bituitus, a name known otherwise only from a king of the
> > > Arverni
> > > http://www.attalus.org/names/b/bituitus.html
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bituitus
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arverni
> > > so perhaps the Arverni were the Gauls Mithridates was in contact
> > > with?
> >
>
> And perhaps that's why Caesar mentions the old Arverni/Aedui
> > conflict in connection the recent one between Sequani and Aedui,
> > although he doesn't detail any involvement of the Arverni in the
> > latter.
> >
> > > > End of Third Mithridatic War
> > > > *Olthaces, the wod-in- in Przeworsk,
> > > > *must give up attempt for 'Schlieffen plan' against Italy and
> > > > *reconsider his options
> > > >
> > > > GK: This is pure novelistic fantasy. There is no evidence
> > > > which would link the career of Ariovistus to the figures of
> > > > Mithradates and Olthaces.
> > >
> > > Well, there's Snorri, of course (*hides under sofa*).
> > >
> > >
> > > > BTW it is possible (though hardly certain) that the Olthaces
>
> > > in Pompey's triumph in 62 was Olthaces the Dandarian. He seems
> > > > to have been a very trusted ally of Mithradates, who just
> > > > might have appointed him "king" of reconquered Colchis (or
> > > > parts thereof) after the unsuccessful attempt on Lucullus.
>
> The only thing we know of Olthaces/Olcaba is the Luculus episode in
> Appian and Plutarch and his part in Pompey's triumph in Appian.
>
> > > > It is however equally plausible that these Olthaces were
> > > > distinct personalities.
> > > >
>
> True.
>
> > ...
> >
> > > > Olthaces was not Ariovistus.
> > >
> > > There's exactly fourteen years between Olthacus' defection to
> > > Mithridates
> > >
> > > GK: ?? what defection?
> >
> > Come on. Appian mentions it as a possiblity.
> >
> > GK: Cf. above for a refutation given what we know of
> > Mithradates' character in such matters.
>
> Cf. above for what that refutation was worth.
>
> GK: And for what the refutation of that refutation was worth (:=)).
> > Defection or return, then. No matter.17 not 14 (:=)))
> >
> > > and Ariovistus telling Caesar that his army had been without a
> > > roof for fourteen years.
> > >
> > > GK: This is incoherent. Olthacus the Dardanian certainly had a
> > > roof with Mithradates.
> >
> > Incoherent yourself. Whatever roof Olthacus had with Mithridates
> > was made of canvas, M. was constantly at war. The third, to be
> > exact, 75-63.
> >
> > GK: Well then the numbers would have been
>That must be the guy who claims Mithridates and Oltacus were at war in the same period? ;-)
> Don't be an ass.
> Olthaces - Lucullus episode 72 BCE
> Arivistus - Caesar meeting 58 BCE
> We discussed this many times.
>
> GK: It's you who pointed out that "to be exact" Mithridates
> (and Olthacus) were "constantly at war" from 75, not just 72. So
> who's the ass? (:=))).
> And if Olthaces "had a roof" between 75 and 72, why couldn't he haveI think he counted his campaign from the day in 74 BCE when he decided to switch sides to oppose the Romans.
> had "a roof" afterwards?
> How do you know that he did not occasionally return to his DandariaI'll have to take his words for it. ;-) The kingdom of Colchis would have kept him busy.
> between 75 and 63?
> The "fourteen years" of Caesar's Ariovistus just don'tfit. (Nothing
> else fits either). Except in your novel of course.Yeah, right. OK.
> > > > And we have no evidence the Germanics were involved inthat.
> > > > Mithradates' Italian plans.
> > >
> > > By 60/59, Burebista
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
> > > conquers the Boii and Taurisci; in 65 he would already have been
> > > a force to avoid, and Olthaces would have been in a position to
> > > know that better than Mithridates.
> > >
> > > GK: Mithradates didn't seem to think so in Colchis. Cf. Appian
> > > #101. ****GK: And also #102 in Panticapeion.****
> >
> > The mutiny you pointed out yourself took place because of his
> > troops' very different assessment of
> >which his
> > GK: Not of Burebista, but of the fact that since the steppe
> > nomads had not been drawn in, Mithradates' army wasn't even sure
> > of safe passage out of the Crimea...
>
> > A more cautious general would have agreed.
> >
> > GK: And consequently would hardly have embarked on a hopeless
> > raid with a small army such as you postlate for Olthacus and his
> > Dandarians (assuming that the man was not the same as Pompey's
> > captive).
>
> If the reason for that was apprehension about the attitude of the
> nomadic peoples, the remedy would have been to obtain at least safe
> passage from them.
>
> GK: Had Mithradates survived he might well have attempted this.
> But with his death everything went back to "normal", since the new
> King of Bosporus, Pharnaces, had a different policy,
> subjects followed, incl. the Dandarians.And where did you find that in the sources?
> BTW if the three loci describe the same man, here's a scenario whichI dare you. Most of the stuff below is traditionally recognized history.
> will satisfy that:
>
>
> GK: Why not? Everything goes in a novel (:=))))). I could think
> up even more interesting scenarios, but you're the author of the
> novel, so you might as well stick with yours.
> 63 BCE Crassus and Caesar obtain assurances from Pharnaces that hewho starts his insurrection. Pharnaces, according to plan surrenders
> will carry out Mithridates' plan, but only to a territory outside
> the boundaries of Rome, on the condition that sufficient financial
> backing will continue, as under Mithridates. C & C dump Catilina,
>
> to Pompey, but after Pompey leaves, he doesn't make good on hisCeasar elected
> promise.
>
> 61 BCE Olthaces is led in Pompey's triumph and released afterwards.
> C & C meet with him to discuss the revival of Mithidates' plan.
> Olthaces goes home to Dandaria, equips the army from those he knows
> were interested in 63, and begins moving north.
>
> 60 BCE L. Afranius, a consul of 60, goes to war somewhere in the
> Alps from the border town of Aquileia (Mommsen, based on the fact A.
> was accorded a triumph), in my opinion with Noricum to put an end to
> the disturbance Olthaces / Ariovistus is causing there and in the
> Agri Decumates. C and C obtain a deal with Pompey (first
> triumvirate) to defuse the dangerous situation with Pompey's
> veterans roaming the streets of Rome breadless: get
> consul so he can pass agrarian laws to benefit the veterans.Ariovistus to drive him out, but are defeated.
> Accordingly they tell Olthaces/Ariovistus, to go screw himself.
> Olthaces/Ariovistus instead allies himself with the Sequani against
> the Aedui.
>
> 59 BCE In recognition of the extremely dangerous situation the Lex
> Vatinia proposed by Caesar's man P. Vatinius is passed, giving
> Caesar the provinces Gallia Cisalpinia and Illyricum for five years,
> in order to combat this threat. Later, when it seems Olthaces /
> Ariovistus will concentrate his activities to Gaul, Caesar receives
> Gallia Transalpina as province too. Caesar names Olthaces /
> Ariovistus a friend of the Roman people in return for a promise that
> he will cease making war on the Aedui and stay in the areas given
> to him by the Sequani. The Sequani and the Aedui surreptitiously
> attack Olthaces /
> Naturally Olthaces / Ariovistus suspects Caesar is involved; heMommsen on Afranius:
> begins oppressing the Sequani.