sign in sign up
<<
Home , Datames, Mithridates V Euergetes, Pontus (region)

CHAPTER ONE

PONTUS TO THE TIME OF

Pontus emerges as an independent kingdom in the first half of the third century. Its existence before that, and the ancestry of its kings are matters of great uncertainty, as the sources are few and distorted by the prop­ aganda of later kings. Towards the end of the third century Mithridates II claimed to be a descendant of one of the seven who slew the Pseudo-Smerdis, and to have maintained the dynasteia given to his ancestors as a reward by Darius (Pol. 5.43.2). We hear of this claim to go back to one of the seven Persians in other sources, but we cannot verify it. 1 Even grander ancestry is asserted: the line is traced back to Cyrus, Darius, Seleucus I, . 2 Meyer showed that this was all propaganda: ancient and noble lineage was invented, especially in the time of Mithridates Eupator, to give added respectability and nobility to the ruling family. 3 Not only was the ancestry fictitious, but Pontus did not exist as a kingdom in Persian times. When Diodorus describes the fourth century members of the family as "kings", he is either an­ ticipating the establishment of the kingdom or perhaps referring in exag­ gerated terms to the dynasty of the Mithridatids in . 4 It is in this dynasty that the traceable origins of the family . Diodorus follows part of it clearly through Ariobarzanes (362-337), Mithridates (337-302), and another Mithridates (302-266). 5 The earliest we can go back appears to be the Mithridates who was succeeded by the famous of , Ariobarzanes (Diod. 15.90.3). This Mithridates I of Cius may have been the friend of the young Cyrus mentioned by (An. 2.5.35; 3.3-4), and the gover-

1 Diod. 19.40.2; Florus 1.40.1; Aur. Viet., De Vir. Ill. 76.1. Reinach, Mith.Eup. 2 ac­ cepted this claim, tentatively connecting the Pontic royal family with Norondobates one of the seven Persians in Ctesias' list, and perhaps the father of the Mithridates who donated a statue of to the Academy (Diog. Laert. 3.25). 2 Sall. H. 2.73 Maurenbrecher; Florus 1.40.1; App. Mith. 112;Just. Epit. 38.7.1; Tac. Ann. 12.18.4. 3 Meyer, Geschichte 31-38. The same propaganda was devised in -Diod. 31.19. • Diocl. 20.111.4. Another town is coupled with Cius, but the name is not clear, Ar­ rhina perhaps, or Marina. 5 Diod. 16.90.2; 20.111.4. See E. Meyer, Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleina­ sien (1925) 157-158. Reinach, Mith. Eup. 5 n. 4 argues against such a dynasty, but has to discount entirely the evidence of Diodorus. For a defence of the dynasty see Geyer, RE 15, 2 (1932) col. 2157. 14 PONTUS TO THE TIME OF MITHRIDATES V EUERGETES nor of Cappadocia and encountered by the Ten Thousand (Xen. An. 8.8.25), but there is no firm evidence for such an identifica­ tion. Ariobarzanes is comparatively well documented. 6 We find him first in 407 conducting Athenian envoys to the coast under the orders of Phar­ nabazus (Xen. Hell. 1.4. 7). 7 When Pharnabazus was called away to marry the king's daughter, Ariobarzanes succeeded him as satrap in Dascyleium (Xen. Hell. 5 .1. 28), and pursued a vigorous policy in Greece. He supplied ships for Antalcidas in 378, and in 368 sent Philiscus to make peace among the . Philiscus failed in this mission, but left mercenaries for the Spartans. 8 Probably an attempt was also made to win the favour of , because when Ariobarzanes revolted against Artax­ erxes Mnemon, not only did Agesilaus himself hurry to the aid of Ariobarzanes, but the Athenians also sent a squadron of ships under Timotheus. 9 In thanks Ariobarzanes gave money to Agesilaus and presented Athens with the Thracian towns of Crithote and Sestus. It was perhaps in return for this that the Athenians granted citizenship to him and his sons, and to Philiscus and Agauus (Dem. InAristocr. 141; 202). In the end Ariobarzanes was betrayed to the Persian king by his son Mithridates and was crucified. 10 Mithridates had already demonstrated his aptitude for treachery by skilfully engineering the murder of Datames. 11 It was probably he who made an unsuccessful attempt to gain control over Heracleia. 12 He may also be Mithridates II of Cius, whose predecessor Ariobarzanes died in 337 (Diod. 16.90.2). 13 This Ariobar­ zanes, however, must be different from Ariobarzanes the satrap who died almost certainly in 362. 14 After the death of Mithridates I, then, some

6 Judeich, RE 2 (1896) col. 832 No. 1. It is not clear, asjudeich claims, that Ariobar­ zanes was a son of the Mithridates whom he succeeded. 7 In fact he takes the envoys to Cius. Reinach, Mith. Eup. 2. n. 5 says that we cannot draw any conclusions from this about the relations between Cius and the Mithridatids at this time, but it may signify that Ariobarzanes had taken over in Cius. 8 Xen. Hell. 7.1.27. According to Diodorus (15.70.1-2) it was Artaxerxes who sent Philiscus to Greece, so Ariobarzanes was probably just carrying out the king's orders. 9 Xen. Ages. 2.26; Dem. De Lib. Rhod. 9; Nep. Tim.1.3; Ages. 7.2. 10 Harp. Ariobarzanes; Xen. Cyr. 8.8.4; Val. Max. 9.11.7. 11 Polyaenus, Stral. 7.29.1; Nep. Dal. 10-11. 12 Just.Epit.16.4.7. That the Mithridates of Justin is the same person as the son of Ariobarzanes is argued by S. Burstein, Outpost of Hellenism. The Emergence of Heraclea on the (1972) 126 n. 7. 13 Olshausen, RE Suppl. 15 (1978) col. 401 disagrees, but he could, for instance, be a younger brother of his predecessor, and both could be sons of Ariobarzanes the satrap. 14 Attempts to keep Ariobarzanes the satrap alive until 337 and thus dispense with the second Ariobarzanes are not successful. Diodorus (16.90.2) reports the death of Ariobar­ zanes in 337/6 after a rule of twenty six years, and implies (15.90.3) that Mithridates I had died, and that the satrap had taken over the dynasty, as must be the case, before 362: see Olshausen (supra n. 13) col. 402. In addition, although Harpocration provides the only evidence for the satrap's crucifixion, there is other evidence that he was betrayed, and it is