CHAPTER THREE

EUPATOR IN ASIA BEFORE THE FIRST WAR WITH ROME

Paphlagonia and Galatia Justin (Epit. 37.3. 4-5) tells us that early in his reign Mithridates journeyed incognito through Asia and Bithynia, gathering information on the state of affairs and planning for his future victories. On his return to Pontus he was met with news of the birth of a son to his sister-wife Laodice, who now tried to kill him: she had been unfaithful in his absence believing him dead, and considered his removal her only pledge of safety. If the journey did take place, and there is no particular reason to disbelieve the story, it must have been before the joint Pontic­ Bithynian invasion of Paphlagonia in 108/7 .1 We may place it in about 109 or 108. 2 The annexation of Paphlagonia was Mithridates' first major enterprise in Asia Minor. Little is known about Paphlagonia at this time. It had been one of the areas overrun by Pharnaces, who was forced to give it up on his defeat in 179, and to pay an indemnity to its king Morzius (Pol. 25.2; see above p. 29). This Morzius had fought for the Gauls against Manlius Vulso in 189 (Livy 38.26.4), but had somehow avoided trouble from such an attachment. Another of its kings, Pylaemenes-a dynastic name according to Justin (Epit. 37.4.8)-helped the Romans in their war against Aristonicus (Eutropius 4.20.1; Oros. 5.10.2). As for the organisa­ tion of the country, Strabo (12.3.41 c.562) says that a little before his own time, Paphlagonia was governed by several rulers in spite of its small size. Thus it was not a unified kingdom and should prove an easy victim for Mithridates. There was also a hope that because of its insignificance, annexation of it would be of little concern to the Romans, who were at this time fully occupied in fighting Jugurtha. Any expansion in Asia, however, was likely to be viewed with disfavour and suspicion by other rulers of the region. In this matter the failure of Pharnaces was instructive. He had tried to expand his kingdom in one major war against all his neighbours together, and he discovered

1 The evidence for this date is the Bithynian coin issue of the era year 190 (i.e. 108/7) which displays on the reverse a palm, signifying, it is to be presumed, the victorious enter­ prise in Paphlagonia: see Recueil General 231 No. 40. 2 As most scholars have done, approximately, since Reinach, Mith. Eup. 86 n. 1 sug­ gested 108: see for instance F. Geyer, RE 15 (1932) col. 2166 (107); G. Daux, BCH 57 (1937) 81 (107); G. Vitucci, /l regno di Bitinia (1953) 99 n. 2 (108). EUPATOR IN ASIA BEFORE THE FIRST WAR WITH ROME 67 that his resources were not equal to the task of dealing with such a large coalition. A more cautious approach, progressing step by step, might produce more favourable results. Moreover, an effective way of weaken­ ing the potential opposition was to take as an ally its most powerful member. Pharnaces enjoyed the support of Mithridates of Armenia, but this was hardly a significant addition to this strength. Indeed the failure to acquire a strong ally can be seen as an important factor in his defeat. The most powerful kingdom after Pontus in western Asia Minor at this time was Bithynia, and it was here that Mithridates Eupator looked for an ally. The two kingdoms had many similarities. Both came into existence at about the same time and grew under the guidance of kings from non­ Greek families. 3 Both royal lines projected themselves as philhellenic, minting coins with Greek types, 4 founding cities and naming them after the founder in good Hellenistic fashion, and developing many and varied ties with the Greek World. 5 Both pursued policies favouring one or other of the main Hellenistic monarchies, Pontus leaning towards the Seleucids, Bithynia unswervingly hostile to them, but allied with the Ptolemies and Antigonids. Representatives of both worked steadily for the expansion of their kingdoms through a mixture of diplomacy and war. In the course of the second century it had become increasinly clear that Rome was the leading power in the Mediterranean, and even if Pon­ tus was more toward the fringe of the Roman world, she had, like Bithynia, been drawn into the friendship and alliance of the Senate and Roman people. In spite of the similarities of development, however, political relations between Pontus and Bithynia had for the most part been far from cordial. It is true that Pharnaces helped Prusias I against Pergamum (above p. 24), but Prusias II soon after joined the coalition against Pharnaces' subsequent aggression (above p. 27-8), and later, in another war against Pergamum, was opposed by Mithridates IV (above p. 34-5). Furthermore Nicomedes III seems to have had some dispute with Mithridates V Euergetes over an unspecified matter, as we learn from a

3 For the early history of Bithynia, see F. Geyer, RE 17, 1 (1936) col. 493-499 (Nicomedes I-IV); Rostovtseff, SEHHW 566-571; 662-3; 826-9; Magie, RRAM 311-320; Vitucci (supra n. 2); Ch. Habicht, Hermes 84 (1956) 90-110; RE 23, 1 (1957) col. 1086-1127 (Prusias I and II); RE 10a (1972) col. 387-397 (Ziaelas); col. 448-455 (Zipoetes); B. F. Harris, ANRW II, 7 .2 (1980) 857 ff. 4 After Nicomedes II, Bithynian coins become standardized: the obverse continues to bear the portrait of Nicomedes II, and the reverse always depicts a standing Zeus, possibly Zeus Stratios: see P. Pollak, ANSMusN 16 ( 1970) 4 7. For the coins of the Bithynian kings see Recueil General. 5 The greatest Bithynian Philhellene was Nicomedes III (c.127-94), who acquired the surname Euergetes because of his generosity (Licinianus p. 22 Criniti): see Magie, RRAM 1119n.46.