> The Bosporan Kingdom was under Pontic kings 108 - 16 BCE
> 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
> support. They weren't independent states as to foreign policy.****
>
> > > 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.*****
>
On the stabilty of the Bosporan Kingdom:
Shchukin
Rome and the Barbarians in Central and Eastern Europe
pp 101-102
'Concerned as he was with developments in Colchis and at Chersonesus, Mithridates could not afford to lose sight of the other major force in the Black Sea sphere, that being the kingdom of the Bosporus which occupied the eastern Crimean and the Taman peninsula. This state was apparently closer in its composition to the kingdom of Pontus than to the Greek city-states of the Black Sea littoral. It represented a distinctive symbiosis of . Greek, Thracian and barbarian (Scythian, Maeotes, Sarmatian) elements: its kings were apparently descended from the Spartacids of Thrace, although this lineage is occasionally disputed. This hybrid fabric was overlaid by Hellenic culture, particularly in the cities of Panticapaeum, Theodosia, Phanagoria and Tanais. Outside the cities, the Hellenic influence was weaker. There was no such clear divide between the Greek city population and the surrounding barbarian milieu in the kingdom of Bosporus as existed in the cities of the western part of the Black Sea littoral such as Chersonesus and Olbia. But the heterogeneity of the Bosporan population did often cause internal contradictions and struggles.
Such a state of internal turmoil existed when Diophantes landed his troops in north-western Crimea. The king of Bosporus was Perisades V, a Spartacid of Greek orientation who was willing to support the pan-Hellenism of Mithridates. But the Bosporan nobility included Scythians, who were potential allies of Skiluros and Palakos. Economically, the cities of Bosporus were experiencing the general economic crisis of the 2nd century BC and their treasuries were empty. Meanwhile, a new wave of nomad invaders - the Roxalani and Aorsi - had come out of the steppes in the east. These invaders probably included the Aspurgians "of mighty horses", a tribe or band which reached the kingdom's boundary and occupied lands on the eastern shore within 500 stadii between Phanagoria and Gorgippia. Funerary inscriptions show that many Bosporans perished at this time to barbarian swords and lances. The combination of Sarmatian demands for tribute and the absence of internal means to meet them may have compelled Perisades to offer rule over the Bosporus to Mithridates: such at least is the theory put forth by Blavatskaya. In the circumstances, such a solution may have satisfied the "Hellenic" party, but it certainly was not acceptable to the "Scythian" party, apparently led by Saumacus, a Scythian raised by Perisades. The political fate of the Bosporus hung in the balance.'
Torsten