Re: Imperialism as the source of new geographical knowledge

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

> From: Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:31 PM
> Subject: [tied] 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?
> ****GK: Well I thought there was something wrong with this statement
> as read in the Strabo we have from the first time I read it, since I
> could see no way of reconciling it with other sources. I didn't know
> the Plutarch quote (thanks again!).

Oh, don't mention it!

> That made it possible to try my emendation (along the lines I tried
> with Pliny earlier but there it was a missing bit I think). I'm
> going to stick with it if the interpretation is as to what
> Mithradates actually did at that time (or soon after) though
> additional points could emerge. For instance, one could elaborate by
> assuming that shortly before 91 the Scythians again attacked
> Chersonesos and Mithridates sent an army which actually crossed the
> isthmus

They would have been very slow learners if they had tried that. Besides Plutarch talks about a 'Sarmatian and Bastarnian' war.


(Diophantes didn't).*****

Sez you.

> > 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?
>
> ****GK: I would have to agree if one meant plans and dreams rather
> than actual deeds.

That's not very Alexander-like.

> Mithridates waxs obviously an educated monarch
> who would have read all about Alexander and his exploits. He could
> certainly dream about crushing Rome very early. And he must have
> known about the battle of Noreia even before his initial
> intervention (via Diophantes) on behalf of the Chersonesites against
> the Scythians (a challenge that, for someone who secretly may have
> planned to emulate Alexander).*****

He would have rooted for the Cimbri. Vercellae 101 BCE would have made him think twice about attacking Italy.

> > 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?
>
> GK: Yes. The theory that "Pasiani" is an alternate reading on the
> margin which somehow found its way into the main text. According to
> my current view, "Adrias" might have started that way, and then
> simply have been substituted for "Tyras". Maybe the copyist was
> familiar with Mithradates' final plans of 63 BCE.****

Why would 'Adrias' at all have been suggested as a second reading anyway in the first place?

> > 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?
> ****GK: Are you suggesting that the Pontics campaigned across the
> isthmus before the events recounted in the Diophantes inscription?
> (:=)))***

Yes. Now you may ask why on earth would M. have engaged in military activity across the Black Sea from his own kingdom, but one would have to answer that question also if one, with tradition, assumes that that activity started with appeals from Khersonesos or the Bosporan Kingdom.  

Here's a possible motive:
Adrienne Mayor
The Poison King :
the life and legend of Mithradates,
Rome's deadliest enemy
p. 69
'After his father was buried in the royal mausoleum at Amasia (the old Pontic capital), young Mithradates was crowned king of Pontus, in 120 or 119 BC. His fathers will apparently left the kingdom to the joint rule of Queen Laodice, Mithradates, and his brother Mithradates the Good. Since both princes were underage, Laodice retained all power as regent, and she favored her younger, more malleable son. Laodice's love of luxury made her a compliant client of Rome. Over the next few years, she accepted their bribes, and her extravagance pushed Pontus into debt.'
 
M. might have been procuring slaves on the Scythians' territory between the isthmus and the Adriatic to get his kingdom out of debt. That would have made him an excellent candidate for an ally to the Greek slave market cities in the Crimea who were being hassled by their present procurers.

>  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.
>  
> ****GK: Well what he says is that Chersonesos was only fully
> incorporated at a time when Mithradates campaigned actively across
> the isthmus, preparatory to his Roman war.

No, he doesn't:
'This city was at first self-governing, but when it was sacked by the barbarians it was forced to choose Mithridates Eupator as protector.'
This is a one-event thing, not a two stage process.

> Now clearly he never reached the Adriatic, neither then nor at any
> time (not even in 88ff.).

Ah, I see what you got wrong there. Strabo says:

'He was then leading an army against the barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias'

You are reading it as:
'He was then leading an army against the barbarians (who lived beyond the isthmus) as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias'

and ignoring this reading:
'He was then leading an army against the barbarians (who lived beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias)'

which I think is the right one. Thus: those barbarians that Mithridates fought were living beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias; Mithridates fought them, but Strabo doesn't say that doing so M. reached the Adriatic.

> But Strabo is not talking about dreams but about actual deeds.

True.

> The only thing that seems to fit (again not in 110-108, but in
> 91-89) is a campaign against Bastarnians and Sarmatians (Iazyges),
> if one emends "Adrias" to "Tyras".****

I disagree. Alexander died in his early thirties, anybody who wanted to emulate him would have to start early, as Caesar noted.


Torsten