(GK)(Diophantes didn't) i.e. engage in military activity north of the isthmus of Perekop prior to 110 BCE
>
(TP) Sez you.
>
> GK: Because there is no evidence that he did.
If you emend that of Strabo out of existence, there isn't.
****GK: It doesn't really matter whether one amends Strabo or not. In any case, Strabo needs to be understood properly. Reread the passage in question: (7,4,3) It begins thus:
"This city [Chersonesos GK] was at first self-governing, but when it was sacked by the barbarians"
STOP. We can't take "sack" literally. We know as an absolute fact that Chersonesos was never "sacked" in that time period. We know that its state was fiercely attacked, that it lost its northern holdings (Kerkinitis and Kalos Limen), and that it was even subject to siege. This evidently began when Skilur was still alive. We must understand "sacked" to mean "fiercely attacked" (nothing like the sack of Rome by Alaric).
Strabo then continues: " it was forced to choose Mithridates Eupator as protector"
We know as an absolute fact that Chersonesos did not immediately lose its independence as a result of Diophantos' activity on its behalf in 110-108 BCE (The Chersonesos decree is clear). But after mentioning some details of the Pontic intervention, Strabo concludes that "from that time on down to the present the city of the Chersonesites has been subject to the potentates of the Bosporus".
"That time" must mean some point shortly after 108. We just can't ignore the Diophantos Decree. Strabo has thus telescoped information about a series of events which by and by led to Chersonesos losing its self-government. BTW as an aside, Strabo's "to the present" is a bit puzzling, and may be indicative of which sources he was using. We know that Chersonesos regained its independence from Bosporus in 45 BCE through a decree of Caesar, and managed to retain it (though subsequently subject to Roman supervision or control of various types).
I have interpreted him to imply that this happened in the context of a Pontic campaign north of the isthmus, and I have identified that campaign with Mithradates' war against the Bastarnae and Sarmatians (Iazyges) of 91-88.
I admit that this is tentative, and wholly linked to a "real fact" understanding of this segment by Strabo: "He [Mithradates GK] was then leading an army against the barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias; this, however, was preparatory to a campaign against the Romans".
You don't like my emendation of Adrias to Tyras. But as "real history" that seems the only possibility. A way out is to treat it as "dream" i.e. as a plan to be realized, not yet a "real fact" (for which, I repeat there is no evidence prior to 110-108). This ("Mithradates' dream") is also an arguable interpretation.
Strabo would then mean that Mithradates as early as 110 or even sooner was "intending" (or planning) to lead "an army against the barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias; this, however, was preparatory to a campaign against the Romans". Not that he or his generals were already on the field! There is support available for such a view in the next segment of Strabo's verbalization:
"So, then, in accordance with these hopes of his he gladly sent an army to Chersonesus, and at the same time carried on war against the Scythians, not only against Scilurus, but also the sons of Scilurus"
M's "hopes" (dreams, plans) were to march north of the isthmus against the barbarians who lived "beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias". This meant first and foremost the Scythians, and then others. When he was making these plans Skilur was perhaps still alive. He would be the main opponent. We actually don't know for sure when Skilur died. Everything is tentative about this event. But possibly Strabo meant that Skilur still lived when Chersonesos made its appeal for help, but died before Diophantos began his campaign of 110.
We are unfortunately still left in ignorance of the exact dates for the establishment of Pontic hegemony over the Greeks and "barbarians" of the northern and northwestern Black Sea area as a whole which existed as of 88 BCE. Bosporus= 108. That is certain. The Scythians of the Crimea= 108, also certain. The rest, sometimes later. In any case, his dream war against the Romans was delayed for twenty years and more...
So there are two choices re Strabo's "This city was at first self-governing, but when it was sacked by the barbarians it was forced to choose Mithridates Eupator as protector. He was then leading an army against the barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias" (1) This refers to the campaign of 91-88 (though here also there is the "sack" complication), which is when Chersonesos was finally incorporated. Or (2) This represents Mithradates' political dream of ->110, which he saw the opportunity to realize when Chersonesos appealed to him for help.
There is no evidence in Strabo of any active real campaign by Pontus north of the isthmus of Perekop prior to 110.****
(TP) Actually there is, cf.Valentina Krapivina
Problems of the Chronology of the Late Hellenistic Strata of Olbia
http://www.pontos.dk/publications/books/bss-3-files/BSS3_12_karivina.pdf
'Thus, at the end of the 2nd century BC the situation, which in the previous period was not good either, changed for the worst...
****GK: This is a good article. Note that Krapivina says that Olbia was subjected to Mithradates in 105 BCE (three years after the Diophantes victories). She also mentions a newly discovered inscription, dated from 77 BCE, indicating that in that year Diogenes of Thyaios was Mithradates' governor in Olbia...****
(TP)
Plutarch, Caesar, 12
http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/caesar.htm#12
'It is said that another time, when free from business in Spain, after reading some part of the history of Alexander, he sat a great while very thoughtful, and at last burst out into tears. His friends were surprised, and asked him the reason of it. "Do you think," said he, "I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?"'
****GK: It would not have escaped his learned contemporaries that at the age of 24 Mithradates had at least emulated Alexander's feat on the Iaxartes in 329 (when he was 27), i.e. defeated the Scythians (through his general though...Cf. Diophantos Decree : "routing the Scythians who were thought to be irresistible")****