UVM Theses and Dissertations
Format:
Print
Author:
Evans, Jessica
Dept./Program:
Classics
Year:
2004
Degree:
M.A.
Abstract:
When one considers Rome's most formidable foreign enemies, one usually thinks of Hannibal and his audacious challenge to Roman power. Almost a century after Hannibal's death Rome faced a second challenge from an equally formidable enemy, Mithradates VI Eupator, King of Pontus, described by Velleius Paterculus as "always great in spirit and sometimes in achievement, in strategy a general, in bodily prowess a soldier, in hatred to the Romans a Hannibal" (2.18). For the last thirty or so years the field of Mithradatic studies has been primarily focused on one of three endeavors, the first among these being the dating of events prior to and during Mithradates' conflict with Rome.1 Secondly, scholars have sought to explain the king's actions by analyzing Mithradates' relationship with Rome and the latter's treatment of the king. The third field of inquiry, and, also the most interesting, is the methods by which the interested parties gained allies.
Undeniably there are two battles in every war, the first being the battle in the field, the second being the propaganda war; the Mithradatic Wars are not without exception; consequently this too has received much attention in recent years. Such studies serve to illuminate what one may call "Newton's law of war" i.e. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in examining the events just prior to the Mithradatic Wars it would seem that Rome and Pontus were bound to collide. Mithradates ultimately lost in his war with Rome, but few would have expected that a small country such as Pontus could so successfully challenge Roman power for over twenty years. The anomaly becomes even more perplexing when one considers that Pontus' greatest asset was not its military power, but rather the genius of its king. Although the magnitude of the atrocities committed by Mithradates hardly warrants praise, one would be hard pressed to deny brilliance on the part of Mithradates. Mithradates' success was a product of his innate genius coupled with hatred for Rome.
Through the course of this paper I will show how Mithradates' success is not, in fact, as anomalous as it may seem. By examining Rome's previous engagements in the East, including Greece, Mithradates emerges as an inevitable product of his time. It should be added that it is not my purpose to find justification for Mithradates' hatred of Rome and the ensuing war, but it is my hope that in examining the effects of Rome's actions with respect to her "friends and allies" it will become clear that the prejudices held by Rome and Pontus alike were the result of irreconcilable cultural differences in foreign and domestic policies.
Undeniably there are two battles in every war, the first being the battle in the field, the second being the propaganda war; the Mithradatic Wars are not without exception; consequently this too has received much attention in recent years. Such studies serve to illuminate what one may call "Newton's law of war" i.e. for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and in examining the events just prior to the Mithradatic Wars it would seem that Rome and Pontus were bound to collide. Mithradates ultimately lost in his war with Rome, but few would have expected that a small country such as Pontus could so successfully challenge Roman power for over twenty years. The anomaly becomes even more perplexing when one considers that Pontus' greatest asset was not its military power, but rather the genius of its king. Although the magnitude of the atrocities committed by Mithradates hardly warrants praise, one would be hard pressed to deny brilliance on the part of Mithradates. Mithradates' success was a product of his innate genius coupled with hatred for Rome.
Through the course of this paper I will show how Mithradates' success is not, in fact, as anomalous as it may seem. By examining Rome's previous engagements in the East, including Greece, Mithradates emerges as an inevitable product of his time. It should be added that it is not my purpose to find justification for Mithradates' hatred of Rome and the ensuing war, but it is my hope that in examining the effects of Rome's actions with respect to her "friends and allies" it will become clear that the prejudices held by Rome and Pontus alike were the result of irreconcilable cultural differences in foreign and domestic policies.