Re: Imperialism as the source of new geographical knowledge

From: george knysh
Message: 67622
Date: 2011-05-26
 



Except perhaps that first campaign could have been the one which split the Scythians in two, and caused the ascendancy oif the Sarmatians?
 
****GK: Non capisco. Is this an alternative scenario for the pre-Chersonesos Mithradatic intervention in the northwest you postulate?****
 
> > In ->110 BCE the Scythians controlled everything from the Thracian
> > boundary (as described by Ps. Skymnos) to that of the Bosporan
> > kingdom. And M's "first spoils" against them were those of
> > Diophantes at Chersonesos.

> Source, remind me?
>  
> GK: The DIophantos Decree, here: "he (Diophantos), drawing his
> army up in the moment of need and routing the Scythians, who were
> thought to be irresistible, brought it about that the king
> Mithridates Eupator set up his first trophy from Scythian spoils"
> (this is the campaign of 110).

Yes, but could they have twisted facts into a local perspective?
 
****GK: How so?****
 
Suppose Mithridates sees the campaign on the northest Black Sea litoral and the campaign on behalf of Chersonesos as just one campaign and celebrates that, whatever Chersonesos might have harbored of ideas that she was still free and that the war was about her?
 
****GK: I prefer real facts to undocumented suppositions.*****