Mithridates "the Great"?

[barca]

Archelaus, a Cappadocian, was decisively defeated by Sulla twice, as Hamilcar Barca stated, but he did subjugate Bithynia and much of Greece during the 1st Mithridatic War. When commissioned by Mithridates do negotiate peace with Rome, he turned coat and aided Lucius Licinius Lucullus in the 3rd Mithridatic War, which lasted from 73-71 B.C. Lucullus had Pontus under Roman rule by 70 B.C.

 

Mithridates VI 'the Great' (Eupator Dionysius) of Pontus was probably Rome's most dangerous enemy in the last century B.C. Exploiting Rome's vulnerability during the Social War (91-87 B.C.), he took over Cappadocia and Bithynia, and shortly afterwards overwhelmed the army of Manius Aquillius. He was admonished by Sulla to stay in Pontus, and to be 'Friend and Ally of Rome'. He responded by repelling Roman forces (he may have been provoked), precipitating the 2nd Mithridatic War, which he won after consolidating his hold on Pontus and territories to the north. He enlisted the aid of pirates in the Black Sea. It was during the 3rd War he collaborated with Quintus Sertorius, the redoubtable Sabine knight of Iberia. But Mithridates suffered from handicaps, of which a couple were of his own bad doing: he was reputedly too cruel, even for the standards of his time, to gain the  unwavering support necessary to defeat, or even check, Rome. He was indeed passionate in his opposition to the Romans, thinking himself a liberator of Rome's Greek subjects, calling himself 'the Deliverer'. Pompey vanquished him in 66 B.C. at Dastira (later Nicopolis in NW Greece). He had himself killed by a slave 3 years later, as he couldn't dispatch himself poison; he was too injured form constant consumptions of antidotes. He was reputedly trying to enable his body impervious to poison - or something like that.

 

Mithridatism would come to be known as the practice of taking increasing sub-lethal doses of the poison until one was able to tolerate lethal doses. Both the literary scholars Albert Housman and Jorge Luis Borges alluded to Mithridates in their poetry works.

 

He may have been one of the many powerful classical figures who suffered from 'Alexander envy'. He spoke maybe 20 languages, and was a leader of mercurial talent, but his military ability was moderate at best. He set himself a goal that was not only beyond his ability, but beyond his resources.

 

He was certainly a prominent figure in Roman history, but if he had never been given the appellation 'the Great', I would have never wondered why.

 

Thanks, Spartan JKM 

14407[/snapback]

[barca]

[He may have been one of the many powerful classical figures who suffered from 'Alexander envy'. He spoke maybe 20 languages, and was a leader of mercurial talent, but his military ability was moderate at best. He set himself a goal that was not only beyond his ability, but beyond his resources.

 

He was certainly a prominent figure in Roman history, but if he had never been given the appellation 'the Great', I would have never wondered why.

 

Thanks, Spartan JKM

14407[/snapback]

 

 

I have always been perplexed by the "ineptitude" of Mithridates and the Hellenistic kingdoms against the Romans. As pointed out earlier, their large combined-arms forces were easily defeated by much smaller Roman armies.

 

Were there armies really that bad or were they up against a foe (Romans) that not even Alexander could have succeeded against? If the Romans had not gotten involved in the east, could Mithradates or Antiochus have equaled Alexander's conquests? Mithradates did emulate Alexander in defeating the Scythians - not an easy task. I doubt the Romans could have easily beat the Scythians, considering what their cousins (Parthians) did to Crassus.

 

It is easy to say that the later Hellenistic armies were inferior to those of Alexander because of their poor performance against the Roman Legion. Maybe Alexander's armies looked good because their opposition was so bad. Anyone can be a great conqueror against lesser opponents. When looking at the Battle of Magnesia, Antiochus was not able to use the classic hammer and anvil tactic despite numerical superiority in cavalry. Was this really his fault or was it just a better army he was up against, that prevented him from carrying out an effective plan. Mithridates also had superiority in cavalry, but was unable to make use of it. What would Alexander have done against the Roman Army?

 

It seems that the Romans did well against combined-arms forces, but not so well against horse archers. It's almost as though the hellenistic infantry was a hindrance instead of a help, by taking away the hit-and-run option that a pure cavalry force has.

[Germanicus]

There were so many other factors that contributed to Crassus' defeat by the parthians though. His inferiority in cavalry certainly, but more so his downright shocking deciscion making.

 

There are plenty of examples where a roman army that was infantry heavy defeated an army relying on it's cavalry superiority - they had tactics for just such a situation - just ask Pompieus Magnus

[Hamilcar Barca]

One thing we can thank Mithridates for is the quote Vedi veni veci. If it weren't for him, Farnacles would never of been born and Caesar wouldn't of had anyone to annhilate at Zela in 47BC, thus never imparting that brilliant one liner upon us.

 

As for the Alexander VS Caesar debate - its floating around in the forums somewhere but I personally find speculation topics fusterating. General consensus is Alexander wins the battles, Caesar wins the war.

[barca]

There were so many other factors that contributed to Crassus' defeat by the parthians though. His inferiority in cavalry certainly, but more so his downright shocking deciscion making.

 

There are plenty of examples where a roman army that was infantry heavy defeated an army relying on it's cavalry superiority - they had tactics for just such a situation - just ask Pompieus Magnus 

14661[/snapback]

 

 

Pharsalus is a classic example of how a smaller Roman army was able to defeat another (Roman) army that had vast superiority in cavalry. Pompey's army was thrown together hastily. Much of his infantry was made up of eastern contingents-how well trained they were in Roman tactics is not all that clear. It looked like Caesar was up against another one of those Hellenistic combined-arms forces.

 

In these fromations, the mobility of the cavalry is limited by it's responsibility in protecting the infantry. It doesen't have the luxury of moving in and out, as the Parthians could. If they run off the field (as they did at Pharsalus), they leave the infantry exposed. Would the same thing have happened to Alexander's companion cavalry if they had to face on of Caesar's armies?

 

Do you know of any specific battles in which the Romans were able to decisively beat a horse-archer force like the Scythians or Parthians?

[Germanicus]

No Barca, can't say that I do. But that doesn't mean they don't exsist, I'll just have to do some research is all.

 

Off hand - were the Parthians still a largely mounted force when beaten by Trajen, and susquently Varus, Marcus' co emperor ? I do not know a lot about those particular campaigns, but logic would seem to suggest that if Parthian tactics were so kick ass against Roman Legions once, they'd stick with it, unless of course they only won in the first place because of Crassus pathetic leadership decisions.

[Germanicus]

It looked like Caesar was up against another one of those Hellenistic combined-arms forces.

 

I too thought this at one stage, but after some recent reading discovered that in fact, while there was certainly an eastern contingent, Ponpey had :-

 

His 1st Legion - Veteran and extreemly loyal to him personaly

Caesars 15th Legion - Veterans from Gaul turned over to Pompey

3 Recently recruited Italian legions - under eagles for 1 year only

2 Italian legions of 5 years experience (veteran survivors of Carrhae interestingly)

7 Cohorts of the 4th and 6th Veteran Spanish legions - working as one legion

The Gemina legion raised by Cicero in Italy in 51BC

The 24th and 28th, Originaly Caesars, but captured by Pompey at sea, and subsequently defected to him.

 

But I digress severely , my apologies, we were talking about Mithridates.

[barca]

One thing we can thank Mithridates for is the quote Vedi veni veci. If it weren't for him, Farnacles would never of been born and Caesar wouldn't of had anyone to annhilate at Zela in 47BC, thus never imparting that brilliant one liner upon us/QUOTE] .

 

Caesars quote shouid also be taken in perspective, He was not immune from the "Alexander envy" that characterized many of the Hellenistic despots. One of his memorable quotes goes something like this 'Do you think,' said he, 'I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?'-Plutarch

 

What better way of dealing with the inferiority complex than by denigrating Alexander's exploits. By pointing out how easy it was for him to vanquish an eastern foe, he was questioning the credibility of all those who claimed themselves as "the great". whether they were Pompey, Mithridates, Antiochus, or even Alexander. Essentially he was proclaiming himself as a cut above the rest when he said "i came, I saw, I conquered" He was fortunate in that he never had to face the Parthians.