Re: Imperialism as the source of new geographical knowledge

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> My money is on Strabo. It is difficult to explain away
>
> 1) that Strabo in this passage is referring to a campaign on behalf
> of Mithridates against the barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus
> (of Perekop) as far as the Borysthenes (Dniepr) and the Adriatic
>
> *****GK: The Adriatic must be a mistake. This makes no sense at all
> in the context of 110-108 BCE.

To me it does, sorry. Could you elaborate on why you think it couldn't be so?

> Tyras does, whence my suggested emendation.

For 'Adrias' to make sense, Mithridates must have planned an invasion of Rome already at that time. Why couldn't he have? Hannibal knew Carthage would come to blows with Rome sooner or later. Why couldn't Mithridates have sensed the same?

> I would surmise that some copyist erroneously substituted "Adrias".

Yes, you have to do that. I don't.

> There is a similarity in Strabo's account of the fall of Bactria
> (acc. to some scholars and I agree with them) where he repeats
> "Asii" as "Pasiani". The correct reading is in Justin.****

The reading as 'Asii' as 'Pasiani', you mean?

>  which took place when Khersonesos appealed to Mithridates for help
> against the (same?) barbarians, ie in 110-108 BCE.
>  
> *****GK: There is a brief lacuna in the Diophantes inscription after
> he recaptures Neapolis from the Scythians in 108. But no intimation
> of any further campaigns beyond the isthmus, just an expedition to
> solidify the position of Mithradates in Bosporus. And then the
> glorious inscription.*****

Yes, I saw it. Now imagine a similar statue with inscription for Generals Patton or Eisenhower as liberator somewhere in France. Would it necessarily mention his campaign in North Africa? Khersonesos ended up losing its freedom to Mithridates. Why mention the fact that their very liberator was hemming them in with his other conquests?

> This was preparatory to a campaign against the Romans.
>
> ****GK: Which fits in quite well with the events of 88 as described
> in Appian.  And with the Plutarch quote about 91-88. *****

Yes it would have. Unfortunately Strabo places it in 110 - 108 BCE.


Torsten