1 Mithradatic wars GEORGY KANTOR A series of military conflicts between Rome and the king Mithradates VI Eupator of Pontos (see MITHRADATES I–VI) between 89 and 63 BCE resulted, after some early victories for the Pontic king, in the destruction of his kingdom, vast expansion of the area directly governed by Rome in Asia Minor and the Levant, and removal of the last serious threat to Roman domination in the region. The main literary sources include Cicero (De imperio Cn. Pompeii), Sallust (Histories), Memnon of Herakleia (FGrH 434 F 22–40), Plutarch (Sulla 11–26; Lucullus 2–37; Pompey 30–45), Appian (Mithridatic Wars), and Cassius Dio (bks. 36–37); numismatic evidence is analysed by de Callataÿ (1997). In the decade preceding the outbreak of hostilities, Mithradates’ expansionist ambitions, particularly in CAPPADOCIA and BITHYNIA where he was trying to install his puppets on the throne, increasingly brought the king into confrontation with Roman interests. Till the very beginning of the First Mithradatic War, however, Mithradates abandoned his conquests whenever a direct confrontation with Rome was threatened. The extent to which the final confrontation was primarily provoked by Roman representatives or planned by Mithradates in advance is debated (Glew 1977; McGing 2009). Late in 91 generals of the Armenian king Tigranes (who had already intervened in Cappadocia in support of Mithradates; see TIGRANES II–IV) expelled the Cappadocian king Ariobarzanes from his kingdom (see ARIOBARZANID DYNASTY), while Sokrates Chrestos, the claimant supported by Mithradates, forced Nikomedes IV out of Bithynia (see NIKOMEDES I–IV). In 90 Rome dispatched a commission headed by Manius Aquillius to restore them; Mithradates retreated without resistance and put Sokrates Chrestos to death. Encouraged by their success, the commissioners, allegedly without further authority, pressed Nikomedes into invading Mithradates’ realm. Only when Mithradates’ complaints were ignored by Aquillius did the king, now armed with an impeccable pretext, turn to war. The easiest chronology of the opening stages of the conflict places Mithradates’ invasion of Asia in 89 (Sherwin-White 1984: 121–31). After the defeat of Nikomedes at the river Amnias, Mithradates overran Bithynia, Paphlagonia, and Cappadocia, and defeated the outnumbered Roman forces. Most cities of the Roman province welcomed his advance. From Ephesos, Mithradates issued orders for a general massacre of resident Romans and Italians, which were followed enthusiastically. The exaggerated ancient estimate puts the number of victims at 80,000. The proceeds allowed Mithradates to cancel the debts of the cities and to grant a five-year remission of taxes. The Pontic fleet established mastery of the Aegean. In 88, using the time given him by Roman involvement in the Social War, Mithradates unsuccessfully besieged Rhodes. Later in the year a small force under Archelaos crossed to Athens, where a pro-Mithradatic faction had taken power. Archelaos captured most of southern Greece, but his advance further north was checked. Early in 87 five legions under Sulla’s command, delayed by civil strife in Rome, finally arrived in Epirus and advanced against Archelaos. SULLA besieged Athens and on 1 March 86 captured it. At Chaeronea in 86 Sulla decisively defeated a larger Pontic army, which had overrun Thrace and Macedonia and joined forces with Archelaos. Later in the summer 86 a new Pontic corps under Dorylaos arrived in Greece, but was destroyed by Sulla at Orchomenos. Successes of Roman arms allowed the pro-Roman faction to raise rebellions against Mithradates in some Asiatic cities. In the autumn of 86 another Roman army, sent by Sulla’s opponents in Rome, two legions under the consul Lucius Valerius Flaccus, marched to the Bosphorus and crossed to Asia, avoiding confrontation with Sulla. Flaccus was supplanted and killed by Gaius Flavius Fimbria, The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 4548–4551. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah09172 2 who defeated Mithradates in battle and pursued him to the Aegean coast. After Sulla’s arrival at the Hellespont in 85, Mithradates met him at Dardanos and agreed to terms. He was to restore all conquered territories, pay an indemnity of 2,000 talents, and give over 70 fully equipped warships. In return, he was recognized as a “friend and ally of the Roman people.” The conditions were probably so light because Sulla had to deal with Fimbria and was already preparing to return to Italy for the civil war. Want of money and the strength of the Pontic fleet may also have played a role. The treaty was an informal one, which soon led to trouble. In 83 Lucius Licinius Murena, left by Sulla as a governor, invaded Pontos without authorization, claiming that Mithradates failed to restore some of the Cappadocian territory and disregarding the treaty of Dardanos as invalid. On the resumption of campaigning in 82 he was comprehensively defeated by the king, who then, however, accepted Roman demands and reconciled with Ariobarzanes. These events are known as the Second Mithradatic War. The ratification of the treaty was nonetheless blocked in 78, and the lull proved a short one. After the death of Nikomedes IV, Rome in 74 made Bithynia a province. Mithradates, who had restored his military strength and formed an alliance with Sertorius in Spain, invaded Bithynia by the next spring. This time Rome was better prepared: Asia and Cilicia were garrisoned, and both consuls of 74, Lucius Licinius LUCULLUS and Marcus Aurelius Cotta, already dispatched against Mithradates. Mithradates was initially successful, defeating Cotta’s mainly naval forces at Chalkedon and then besieging him at KYZIKOS. There Mithradates was counterblocked by Lucullus’ smaller army and when the supplies ran out had to retreat with heavy losses. Over 72–71 Roman armies invaded Pontos, but avoided direct clashes with Mithradates’ cavalry until Lucullus managed to outmaneuver and destroy the king’s army at Kabeira in 71. Mithradates fled to Tigranes; by 70 main cities of his kingdom and the free city of Herakleia surrendered. Lucullus considered the war as over, but Tigranes, provoked by the arrogance of a Roman envoy, refused to hand over Mithradates. In 69 Lucullus, without further sanction, invaded southern districts of ARMENIA and on 7 October defeated Tigranes near the capital Tigranokerta, which he captured and destroyed, but was then mired down in Armenia. In 68, while Lucullus captured Nisibis, Mithradates reappeared in his ancestral kingdom, and in 67 defeated Lucullus’ legate Triarius at Zela and recovered Pontos and Cappadocia. New governors were appointed by the Senate to Asia Minor provinces and Lucullus, whose tired soldiers rebelled against him, recalled. In 66 the Roman assembly by the lex Manilia transferred the command against Mithradates to the immensely popular POMPEY, who was in Cilicia after his campaign against pirates. Amassing a force much larger than any of the previous Roman efforts, he quickly expelled Mithradates, who fled to the Bosporan part of his realm, from Asia Minor. Tigranes agreed to terms, and in 65 Pompey, after a show of arms in Iberia and Albania, conquered Mithradates’ territories in Kolchis. Instead of pursuing Mithradates, he spent the next two years capturing isolated fortresses in Pontos, bringing the Levant under Roman rule, and organizing the new provinces of Pontos-Bithynia and Syria. Mithradates was eventually brought down by the rebellion of his son Pharnakes in 63 and committed suicide. Grandiose last plans of invading Italy, ascribed to him by some ancient authors, are clearly an invention (Sherwin-White 1984: 203–6). SEE ALSO: Asia Minor, Hellenistic; Pharnakes II; Pontos. REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS de Callataÿ, F. (1997) L’histoire des guerres mithridatiques vue par les monnaies. Louvain-laNeuve. 3 Glew, D. G. (1977) “Mithridates Eupator and Rome: a study of the background of the First Mithridatic War.” Athenaeum 55: 380–405. Glew, D. G. (1981) “Between the wars: Mithridates Eupator and Rome, 85–73 BC.” Chiron 11: 109–30. Magie, D. (1950) Roman rule in Asia Minor to the end of the third century after Christ, vol. 1: 177–378. Princeton. Mastrocinque, A. (1999) Studi sulle guerre Mitridatiche. Stuttgart. McGing, B. C. (1986) The foreign policy of Mithridates VI Eupator King of Pontus. Leiden. McGing, B. C. (2009) “Mithridates VI Eupator: victim or aggressor?” Black Sea Studies 9: 203–16. Sherwin-White, A. N. (1984) Roman foreign policy in the east, 168 B.C.–A.D. 1: 93–234. London.