Re: Torsten's novel

From: george knysh
Message: 66316
Date: 2010-07-13


> --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

*****GK: Actually, the key statement in your ramblings is this:
"But I'm OK with being an improper historian and archaeologist." (later below).
There is thus no particular point in discussing historical or archaeological issues with you is there? You have your novelistic scenario or scenarios, where Olthacus=Ariovistus=Odin, and has all sorts of dealings with Caesar, Crassus, etc. etc. and leaves all sorts of traces here and there, which are completely unknown to reputable scientists (since they are fantasies). Your presence on this list seems to be a misunderstanding in this particular context. *****

> > > Plutarch takes Olthacus' murderous intentions as a fact
> > >
> > > whereas Appian is divided between assuming that and assuming
> > > Olcaba's intentions were those he stated himself
> > > §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
originally defected
> > > from him to Lucullus on his own initiative rather than as
> > > 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
going to defect? That makes no sense. Why
> would he do that?
> 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?


*****GK: Exactly.*****

> Maybe he was negotiating for a "defection deal" through a successful
> prior defector? There could be any of a hundred reasons. I won't
> hazard a guess since I am not writing a novel.

You could have fooled me.

*****GK: I hardly think I can compete with the job you constantly perform on yourself (:=))).*****

> > ibd.c
> > '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
> > > >
> > > > Beginning of Third Mithridatic War (- 63 BC)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 63 BC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Mithridates VI plans invading Italy
> > > >
> > >
> > > GK: He seems to have planned this (initially) in Colchis in the
> > > winter of 66/65: cf. Appian #101. Cf.
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > not the Maeotian
one (as note 1 seem to imply), and that
> > Mithridates was accordingly planning a tour around the Black Sea
> > 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.

Please don't agree with me. I hurt myself falling off the chair.

*****GK: I'm sure you got well again after further readings.*****

> The "Bosphorus" could refer either to the Cimmerian one (in which
> 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".

Mithridates at some time had had control over the nothern shores of the Black Sea, from the Crimea to Thrace, a 'circuit' (periplus?) would have ended in Bithynia, or at least in Thrace.
****GK: One would have thought so, but that is not what Appian went on to describe (unless one combines 101 and 102 as involving plans already made in Colchis, as I originally surmised, and which were not realized when Mithradates was betrayed and died.*****
> > But here the issue is his plan to invade Italy.
> 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 was busy with many schemes, so that is not

> 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.
*****GK: But not yet those he needed for waging a campaign west of Panticapeion. Also acording to Appian.*****

> and there is nothing yet in #101 about that. But we cannot rule out
> that the specifics of #102 were already in Mithradates' mind


> Once in the Azov country, having accomplished stage 1, he
> 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.
> First thrust.
> GK: Appian #101 is my mistake. I meant Appian #102.
> > ...
> > > > The "Scythians" (Scythians
> > > > and Sarmatians) were independent auxiliaries who had to be
> > > > 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
"Scythian" quite
> > > vaguely. He seems to include ancient Georgians (like the
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > "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
hated these persons, who were all-powerful
> > > with Mithridates) and conducted the young women to Pompey.
> > >
> > > [§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
plan, supported with Roman gold.
> >
> > 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.

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: You mean in the novel writing business. I'm not planning to. The fact remains that in real history the "plan to invade Italy" hinged on Mithradates. With his demise there was no one to carry on. (Of course a novelist can "remedy" that easily (:=)).*****

> > > > The expedition was to start from
> > > > 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

When central power breaks down, ethnic groups thought defunct suddenly come to life under new leadership. You would be in an excellent position to testity to the truth of that.

*****GK: When did "central power" break down in the Bosporan Kingdom? Mithradates handed it over to Machares, and then took it away from him, and then lost it to Pharnaces. The only "activity" of the constituent parts was that of moving from one king to another. There is no record of any irredentism in any of the Maeotian tribes. So your ad hominems are irrelevant I'm afraid.*****

> The Bosporan Kingdom was under Pontic kings 108 - 16 BCE
> 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
support. They weren't independent states as to foreign policy.

*****GK: What does this have to do with the Bosporan Kingdom? There is no evidence that its peoples behaved as Soviet republics.*****

> > > In any case this, "Mithradates' own army", which he organized
> > > 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
Dandarii, subjects of Bosporus, did not have an
> independent foreign policy. There is no evidence that the Romans or
> 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.

I 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.
*****GK: Again, this is totally irrelevant to the situation in the Bosporan Kingdom under Mithradates. Or indeed under his predecessors and successors. Speaking of the Dandarians, have a look at the events which occurred in 49 CE, more than a hundred years after Mithradates (as described by Tacitus in his Annals): their "choice" was (then, again) between one or another of the pretenders to the Bosporan throne. Independence wasn't an option.*****

> > There is no evidence to the contrary.
> 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.

But as you see, I don't. Haha.
*****GK: More evasion, incoherence, and self-contradiction.
  Above you stated: "I'll make an emendation: Olthaces was to be the leader of the
> > > allied Dandarian/Scythian army / expeditionary force." And then: "There might have been several such 'Scythian' (in the loose sense)
> > armies, and Olthaces might have commanded only his own Dandarian
> > army," And again: "
But would they have noted a 'Scythian' army/armies moving
> > into Przeworsk? This is the time of the suddenly appearing 'upper
> > layer' there."
So instead of "Haha" you should probably say "Heehaw" (closer to the appropriate braying) (:=))) ******

> > I've told you this many times. Otherwise we must fall
> > back on "Celtic" or other local explanations.

I'll check it up. I am still waiting, since January, to get the 'golden cemetery' book from the library.

> The stuff they have is Roman. That's the interesting thing.
> GK: Where is a description of the whole inventory? Surely you
> don't mean that the entirety of these graves' contents is "Roman"?

No, only the 'male part' of it. Pottery etc is local.

> In the princely graves from later centuries, also the one at
> 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
seems to have overrun Przeworsk at the time.
> 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 such

As whuch?

> (without further evidence) to proper historians or archaeologists
> (but quite all right with novelists)!

But I'm OK with being an improper historian and archaeologist.

*****GK: Good to know this. I commend you on the admission.*****

> There are many other ways in which such "heirlooms" might have
> 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?

As I said, I'll go check. Actually you are in a better position to judge, since Polish and Ukrainian literature is accessible to you.

*****GK: What do you think my rejection of your fantasies as history derives from? Precisely that literature. Of course, there is also some novelistic stuff (like Attila the Slav) which I wouldn't be caught dead citing on a serious list.*****

> > > > *Olthaces as leader (*wod-in-) of an army (*wod-)
> > > > *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
Mithridates' suicide, we don't know.
> > 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.

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
*****GK: Your problem, I see, is your desire to have your novel accepted as history. I'm afraid you're in for permanent frustration.*****
'After the death of Mithridates (63 BC), this Pharnaces (63 BC - 47 BC) made his submission to Pompey, then tried to regain his dominion during the civil war, but was defeated by Caesar at Zela and later killed by a former governor of his.'
*****GK: Note that his "dominion" refers to the Kingdom of Pontus and its Asia Minor dependencies, not the Bosporan Kingdom. Cf. e.g.*****
> > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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 (:=)).

Etc, etc.

> > Defection or return, then. No matter.
> >
> > > 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
17 not 14 (:=)))
> 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? (:=))).

That must be the guy who claims Mithridates and Oltacus were at war in the same period? ;-)

> And if Olthaces "had a roof" between 75 and 72, why couldn't he have
> had "a roof" afterwards?

I think he counted his campaign from the day in 74 BCE when he decided to switch sides to oppose the Romans.

*****GK: That doesn't help you. 16 (at best) is not 14. (:=)))*****

> How do you know that he did not occasionally return to his Dandaria
> between 75 and 63?

I'll have to take his words for it. ;-) The kingdom of Colchis would have kept him busy.

*****GK: Anything is possible in a novel (:=)))In real history, of course, we just don't know.*****

> The "fourteen years" of Caesar's Ariovistus just don't
fit. (Nothing
> else fits either). Except in your novel of course.

Yeah, right. OK.

> > > > And we have no evidence the Germanics were involved in
> > > > Mithradates' Italian plans.
> > >
> > > By 60/59, 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
> >
> > 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,
which his
> subjects followed, incl. the Dandarians.

And where did you find that in the sources?

*****GK: Well for instance in Appian #113: Pompey recognized Pharnaces as sovereign of all holdings of the Bosporan Kingdom except for the city of Phanagoria: Cf.

" Pharnaces, for delivering Italy from much trouble, was inscribed as a friend and ally of the Romans, and was given Bosphorus as his kingdom, except Phanagoria, whose inhabitants were made free and independent because they were the first to resist Mithridates when he was recovering his strength, collecting ships, creating a new army and military posts, and because they led others to revolt and were the cause of his final collapse."

> BTW if the three loci describe the same man, here's a scenario which
> 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.

I dare you. Most of the stuff below is traditionally recognized history.

*****GK: I don't think your connections between Olthacus and Ariovistus, and your notions of contacts between Caesar/Crassus/Pharnaces and Olthacus/Ariovistus are "traditionally recognized history".******

If you want to pursue me into Italy, I advise you to get access to; many academic institutions have it.

****GK: I'm not interested in competing with you as a novelist. When you've read the "Golden Cemetary" work you will find more hard labour. But I'm sure your imagination will manage (:=)))*****

> 63 BCE Crassus and Caesar obtain assurances from Pharnaces that he
> 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,
who starts his insurrection. Pharnaces, according to plan surrenders
> to Pompey, but after Pompey leaves, he doesn't make good on his
> 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
Ceasar elected
> consul so he can pass agrarian laws to benefit the veterans.
> 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 /
Ariovistus to drive him out, but are defeated.
> Naturally Olthaces / Ariovistus suspects Caesar is involved; he
> begins oppressing the Sequani.

Mommsen on Afranius:
Römische Geschichte
Dritter Band
Fünftes Buch
Die Begründung der Militärmonarchie
'Pompeius' eigene Werkzeuge, wie zum Beispiel die durch seinen Einfloß
und zum Teil durch sein Geld gewählten Konsuln Marcus Pupius Piso 693 (61) und Lucius Afranius 694 (60), erwiesen sich als ungeschickt und unbrauchbar.'

"Pompey's own tools, as eg the consuls Marcus Pupius Piso 693 (61) und Lucius Afranius 694 (60) who had been elected throuh his influence and partly through his money, turned out to be unskilled and unusable"

'Caesar indes hatte öffentlich erklärt, keinen Antrag zu seinen eigenen
Gunsten einbringen zu wollen; der Volkstribun Publius Vatinius übernahm es also, den Antrag bei der Bürgerschaft zu stellen, die natürlich unbedingt gehorchte. Caesar erhielt dadurch die Statthalterschaft des cisalpinischen Galliens und den Oberbefehl der drei daselbst stehenden, schon im Grenzkrieg unter Lucius Afranius erprobten Legionen, ferner proprätorischen Rang für seine Adjutanten, wie die Pompeianischen ihn gehabt hatten; auf fünf Jahre hinaus, auf längere Zeit, als je früher ein überhaupt auf bestimmte Zeit
beschränkter Feldherr bestellt worden war, ward dies Amt ihm gesichert.'

"Caesar had at that time declared publicly that he would not propose any undertaking to his own benefit; thus the tribune of the people Publius Vatinius took on presenting the proposal to the citizenry who naturally complied unconditionally. Caesar hereby acquired the proconsulship of Gallia Cisalpina and the command of the three legions there,
battle-hardened in the border war under Lucius Afranius, further rank of propraetor for his adjutants, as Pompey's had also had; for five years, for a longer period, than had ever been assigned to a time-limited general, this office was secured for him"


'Das nordöstliche Italien blieb nach wie vor den Angriffen der alpinischen Völkerschaften preisgegeben. Das im Jahre 695 (59) bei Aquileia lagernde starke römische Heer und der Triumph des Statthalters des Cisalpinischen Galliens, Lucius Afranius, lassen schließen, daß um diese Zeit eine Expedition in die Alpen stattgefunden; wovon es eine Folge sein mag, daß wir bald darauf die Römer in näherer Verbindung mit einem König der Noriker finden.

"North eastern Italy remained open to the attacks of Alpine peoples. The strong Roman army stationed there in 695 (59) and the triumph of the propraetor of Gallia Cisalpina, Lucius Afranius, seems to indicate that an expedtion into
the Alps had been undertaken; from which it might follow that we soon after find the Romans in closer connection with a king of the Norici.

'Offenbar spielte Caesar in dem Bunde nur die Rolle des Adjutanten, der das für seinen Chef ausführte, was Flavius, Afranius und andere, weniger fähige Werkzeuge versucht und nicht geleistet hatten. Selbst seine Statthalterschaft schien dies Verhältnis nicht zu ändern. Eine sehr ähnliche Stellung hatte erst kürzlich Afranius eingenommen, ohne darum etwas Besonderes zu bedeuten; mehrere Provinzen zugleich waren in den letzten Jahren wiederholentlich einem Statthalter untergeben und schon oft weit mehr als vier Legionen in einer Hand vereinigt gewesen;'

"Obviously Caesar in the union played only the role of adjudant, who did for his boss, what Flavius, Afranius and other less capable tools had tried and failed at. Even his proconsulship seems not to have changed this state of affairs. Until
recently Afranius had been in a very similar position, without much significance; in the last years several provinces together had repeatedly been assigned a proconsul and often much more than four legions had been united in one hand."