From: Torsten
Message: 67592
Date: 2011-05-22
>Yes, I understand that's your scenario.
>
>
>
> as you say, since Skiluros' empire stretched 'from the Thracians to
> the Maeotians' appr. 120 BCE, this was the one Khersonesos was up
> against,
> ****GK: Correct.****
>
> thus Diophantos' campaign against them was just opening another
> theater of war in a war already begun.
> ****GK: In the sense that Skiluros' Scythians had already captured
> all of Chersones' holdings in the northwest Crimea (incl. Kerkinitis
> and Kalos Limen) and were assaulting the metropolis itself.
> Diophantes recovered all their territory as well as conquering the
> Scythian holdings in the Central Crimea.
> Palakus and co. [BTW an interesting tidbit: Strabo says thatOh well. Do you think it's too late for a job application? On the other hand, there are certain risks involved...
> Posidonius held Skilur to have fathered 80 sons /shades of
> Attila.../ and Apollodorus says 50. The Neapolis inscription has...
> 60.]
> were pushed back north of the Perekop isthmus.*****And beyond, says I.
>Strabo does.
> This was then the war which broke the Scythians,
> ****GK: Again, we know of no such expedition at that time.
> It certainly must have isolated the Scythians who remained in theBTW doesn't he say those Bastarnae were named Peucini because they *took* Peuke, not because they stayed there? Also remember he considers the Roxolani to be Bastarnae.
> Crimea from their brethren north of the isthmus.*****
> resulting in the Tauric Scythians and the Dobrogea Scythians being
> isolated from each other.
>
> ****GK: We still have to figure out how that happened. And not just
> "isolation" but loss of political control by the Scythians in
> "Little Scythia" and settlement of the Bastarnae in Peuce...
> The emended Strabo + Plutarch does not suggest that the ScythiansEven the unemended Strabo + Plutarch doesn't.
> were involved as opponents in Mithridates' campaign of ca. 91-89
> against Bastarnians and Sarmatians.****