Re: Imperialism as the source of new geographical knowledge

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.

****GK: I don't like it very much myself to be truthful.*****

Besides Plutarch talks about a 'Sarmatian and Bastarnian' war.

****GK: Yes that would seem decisive.*****

(Diophantes didn't).
Sez you.

****GK: Because there is no evidence that he did.*****

> > 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.

****GK: Why not? Alexander dreamed of taking on the Scythians, but only after he had conquered the rest of the known world.*****

> 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.

*****GK: I don't see where this would have scuttled his dream.*****

> > 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?

****GK: A slip by some copyist thinking of what he knew of 63 BCE. Or possibly just a misread of a difficult spelling. Who knows?*****

> > 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.

*****GK: I don't attach as much importance to this slave analysis as you do. For instance I think Lockyear (sp?) doesn't agree with Crawford on the Roman coins in Dacia (i.e. the reason for their presence) and he's the better numismatist.****

> 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.'

*****GK: My point is that Strabo had a tendency to telescope events. He has Mithradates warring against Skiluros, but Skiluros was dead long before Diophantes' intervention. And we know that Chersonesos was not fully incorporated (that meant receiving a Pontic governor) in 110-108 BCE.****

> 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'

*****GK: Yes that's my read, with the emendation. That would cover Bastarnia and Iazygia. The Scythians were now allies or neutralized.****

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.

*****GK: Which barbarians would that be? The Scythians proper were cut off from the Tyras in that time. I don't know any barbarians "living beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias". Unless you mean a string of distinct "barbarian" ethna. With the Iazyges and Bastarnians leading the parade. This fits 91-88. Note also that in 110 Diophantos terminated his campaign after defeating the Scythians in the Crimea, and renew****

> 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.

****GK: Well, maybe he tought in terms of eventual over all accomplishments rather than Guinness age records.****

Torsten