Pontic Empire Pontic Empire
#1
Posted 15 April 2005 - 05:00 AM
#2
Posted 15 April 2005 - 05:12 AM
#3
Posted 24 April 2005 - 02:39 AM
pompeius magnus, on Apr 15 2005, 01:00 AM, said:
It's an area around Asia Minor that was settled by Greeks and thus Hellenized to some degree.
Mithradates tried to control the area to create a commercial empire based around the Black Sea trade routes. Hellenes dissatisfied with Roman rule sided with him. However, it only lasted as long as Rome was distracted. Once Rome got its act together the "empire" was taken over by Rome and divided into districts, and was later part of the Byzantine sphere of influence.
Beyond these simple facts, which you probably already know, I can't find more information. It doesn't seem to be terribly important except as a sideshow to the power struggles of the late Republican warlords.
#4
Posted 11 May 2005 - 01:56 PM
Pontic army was combo of Greek, Persian, and their own...
The core of their army was made of heavily armoured catapharct cavalries, which were supported by horse archers and horse javeliners, like in the many eastern army. Infantry was made of rather light persian-type infantry,and phalanx lines. They also had chariots, slingers, archers...
I think it was something like this...
#5
Posted 08 August 2005 - 10:12 PM
The topology of Ukraine is primarily steepe, and I'm guessing that a navy was involved. Did he have a marine contengent?
#6
Posted 08 August 2005 - 10:43 PM
Onasander, on Aug 8 2005, 10:12 PM, said:
The topology of Ukraine is primarily steepe, and I'm guessing that a navy was involved. Did he have a marine contengent?
What does the Ukraine have to do with anything? The Pontic Empire included northern Asia Minor (Pontus, Bithynia, western Armenia), Asia Provincia, Galacia and the Cheronsis at its greatest extent.
#7
Posted 09 August 2005 - 04:02 AM
PerfectimusPrime, on May 11 2005, 09:56 AM, said:
The core of their army was made of heavily armoured catapharct cavalries, which were supported by horse archers and horse javeliners, like in the many eastern army. Infantry was made of rather light persian-type infantry,and phalanx lines. They also had chariots, slingers, archers...
I think it was something like this...
Yep, just like the Seleucids and Antigonids around them, they made use of a huge variety of troops.
Anyway, the Kingdom of Pontus was founded by Mithridates Ktistes in 281 BC. He was the son of the Persian satrap in Kios (of the same name), who was killed by Antigonus late in the 4th C. The kingdom was made notable by Mithridates VI and his wars with Rome.
#8
Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:33 AM
Quote
The Pontic Empire included Crimea (the part of Ucraine). This was main part of Pontic Empire. Mithridates used it like safety zone and place where he could to recruit scythians and sarmatians for pontic army. Many years pontic dynasties were on Bosporan throne.
Quote
The topology of Crimea are hills with dense forest and forbidding rocks along of coastline. There are a lot of good bays between rocks. Mithridates had a navy of course and he used it in the Black Sea.
#9
Posted 09 August 2005 - 06:45 AM
I'm guessing the black sea was central to his mobility, the relying on either a asian or Anatolian calvary force as his offering to support local cities if Rome attacks. If one city is lost, they could retreat to the next unscathed and do it again at practically no cost to himself. Could he transport a large force between Europe and Asia quickly? Doubt it, by a 'successful' ground campaign in asia minor or europe by striking at the passes would be pointless, since he wouldn't be fighting linearly, the ability to pull out and strike from another direction must of been a strength in his opinion, juxapositioning his forces between Europe and Asia, the blacksea as his hinge.
Of course, once the defeats started rolling in, everything would collapse against him, public opinion, his main strength, would side with the romans, loosing his cities and infantry armies all at once. I think his Empire was little more than a tributary federation.
I don't really know thouh, I just pulled that all out of my butt. Any evidence to support my idea?
#10
Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:30 PM
I think the safty of Crimea/Cheronesis(sp?) came from the fortification of the cities, the general topology and the prosperity of the land. The kingdom that once ruled this land was a strong one. My guess is Mithridates got taxes and grain supplies from this area as a part of the boon of his little empire.
#11
Posted 10 August 2005 - 11:57 AM
Quote
Yes. Besides that the Greek colonies in Crimea provided Mithridates with fleet. Greeks always were skilled ship-builder. As to fortification in Crimea they weren't earnest. Only later in Genoa time the fortifications will be more well-founded.
#12
Posted 10 August 2005 - 04:51 PM
Favonius Cornelius, on Aug 9 2005, 01:30 PM, said:
You're right, in fact, Mithridates fought (and defeated) the Scythians in the Crimea in the late 2nd C.
#14
Posted 30 August 2005 - 01:11 PM
#15
Posted 30 August 2005 - 09:15 PM
Fafnir, on Aug 30 2005, 09:11 AM, said:
Well, I had said a little bit about this above:
"Anyway, the Kingdom of Pontus was founded by Mithridates Ktistes in 281 BC. He was the son of the Persian satrap in Kios (of the same name), who was killed by Antigonus late in the 4th C."
As for the "how?": After his father's death, Mithridates Ktistes fled to a fort in Paphlagonia where he drew supporters (to defend against the imminent attack of Antigonus), and his territories and followers eventually grew to include most of Pontus.













