Mithridates Eupator and his wives. Mithridates VI Eupator: biography

One of my colleagues decided to collect an army for a tabletop wargame and I decided to prepare the necessary information for him. 6 Evpator, king of the small Hellenistic state of Pontus, was one of the most stubborn and consistent opponents of Rome. Having annexed significant territories in Asia to Pontus, he was able to oppose Rome with serious material, human and diplomatic resources.

I had to see the opinion that he was as dangerous an enemy of Rome as Hannibal. I can't agree with this. The invasion of Italy either by sea or by land through Thrace and Illyria remained projects. The troops of both commanders consisted of contingents of various nationalities, but the troops cannot be compared in terms of organization and professionalism with the troops of Hannibal. Internal Roman problems contributed greatly - the allied war, the confrontation between the Sullans and the Marians, the war with Sertorius, riots in the Roman armies. The talent of a commander cannot be put next to the talent of Hannibal. But where both commanders are similar is in their tenacity and hatred of Rome.

Artist Justo Jimeno

Army of Mithridates

Information about the army of Mithridates is quite superficial, although numerous. Information can be gleaned from Appian, “Roman History”, Mithridatic Wars and from Plutarch, “Comparative Lives”, Sulla, Lucullus, Pompey. The size of Mithridates' army must be questioned. Initially, Mithridates uses a typically Hellenistic army, similar to the Seleucids, with a phalanx of slaves and sickle chariots, who fought in Greece against Sulla in . Convinced of the low effectiveness of such an army against the Romans, Mithridates tries to rebuild it according to the Roman model. The Romans sent to Mithridates by Sertorius are used as commanders and instructors. However, the Roman uniform, without Roman content, and the help of his son-in-law, the king of Armenia Tigran, did not help Mithridates create a combat-ready army.

Artist D. Aleksinsky

Appian:

Mithridates had 250,000 and 40,000 horsemen in his own army; military ships with a covered deck 300 and with two rows of oars 100 and, accordingly, all other equipment for them; His commanders were two brothers - Neoptolemus and Archelaus, but the king himself commanded most of the army. Auxiliary troops were brought to him by the son of Mithridates himself, Arcathius from Minor Armenia - 10,000 horsemen and Dorylai... lined up in phalanxes, and Craterus - 130,000 war chariots... Archelaus was joined by the Achaeans and the inhabitants of Laconia and all of Boeotia with the exception of Thespiae, which he surrounded and began to besiege.

Artist Angel Garcia Pinto

... And then he (Sulla) moved against Archelaus, also through Boeotia. When they came close to each other, those who had recently been at Thermopylae withdrew to Phocis; these were the Thracians, inhabitants of Pontus, Scythians, Cappadocians, Bithynians, Galatians and Phrygians and inhabitants of other countries that had recently been conquered by Mithridates - a total of 120,000 people. They had their own commanders over each part, but Archelaus was the commander-in-chief over all.

... As allies, he (Mithridates) was joined, in addition to the previous troops, by the Khalibs, Armenians, Scythians, Tauris, Achaeans, Heniochs, Leucosuras and those who live in the lands of the so-called Amazons near the Thermodont River. Such forces joined his previous troops from Asia, and when he crossed into Europe, the so-called royal, Iazigians, Corals, and from the Thracians those tribes that live along the Ister, in the Rodon and Gemu mountains, as well as the Bastarnae, joined from the Sauromatians. , the strongest tribe among them. Such powers were then received by Mithridates from Europe. And he gathered all his fighting forces, about 140,000 infantry, and up to 16,000 horsemen.

Artist Angus Mcbride

... At this time, Mithridates was preparing weapons in every city and called almost all Armenians to arms. Having chosen the best of them - about 70,000 foot and half of this number of horse, he released the rest, and distributed these into detachments and cohorts almost in the same way as the Italian army, and handed them over to Pontic teachers for training.

Plutarch:

Meanwhile, the military leader of Mithridates Taxilus, having descended from Thrace and Macedonia with one hundred thousand infantry, ten thousand horsemen and ninety sickle chariots, summoned Archelaus...

... Sulla, barely noticing the confusion in the ranks of the enemy, immediately struck and quickly covered the distance separating both armies, thereby depriving the sickle chariots of their strength. The fact is that the main thing for these chariots is a long run-up, which imparts speed and power to their breakthrough through enemy ranks, and at a short distance they are useless and powerless, like arrows fired from a poorly drawn bow. This is what happened that time among the barbarians, and the Romans, having repelled the sluggish attack of the lazily moving first chariots, with applause and laughter, demanded new ones, as they usually do at circus races.

... The fact is that in the front ranks of the enemy formation they (the Romans) saw fifteen thousand slaves, whom the royal commanders recruited from the cities, declared them free and included them in the number of hoplites. ...thanks to the depth and density of their formation, the slaves were too slow to yield to the pressure of the Roman heavy infantry and, contrary to their nature, stood bravely.

Artist Jose Daniel Cabrera Pena

... Having decided to start a war a second time, he (Mithridates) limited his forces and their weapons to what was really needed for the cause. He abandoned the motley hordes, the terrifying multilingual barbarian cries, and no longer ordered the preparation of weapons decorated with gold and precious stones, which did not add power to its owner, but only to the greed of the enemy. He ordered swords to be forged according to the Roman model, ordered long shields to be prepared, and selected horses that, although not elegantly dressed, were well trained. He recruited one hundred and twenty thousand infantry and equipped it like the Roman one; There were sixteen thousand horsemen, not counting the sickle chariots.

... After all, in front of them (the Romans) lined up a great number of cavalry and selected enemy fighters, and in the front ranks took place Mardian archers on horses and Iberian spearmen, on whom, among the foreign soldiers, Tigran had special hopes, as the most warlike. But no exploits followed on their part: after a small skirmish with the Roman cavalry, they could not withstand the onslaught of the infantry and fled in all directions. The Roman horsemen chased after them and also scattered in different directions, but at that moment Tigran’s cavalry came forward. Lucullus was frightened by her formidable appearance and enormous numbers and ordered his cavalry to stop pursuing. He himself was the first to attack the Atropatenes, whose best forces were directly opposite him, and immediately filled them with such fear that they fled before hand-to-hand combat came to pass. Three kings took part in this battle against Lucullus, and the one who fled most shamefully, it seems, was Mithridates of Pontus, who could not even withstand the battle cry of the Romans.

Mithridates VI Eupator, the great ruler of the Pontic kingdom and one of the most implacable enemies of Rome, left so many questions as a legacy to historians that their final solution is probably almost as far from completion today as it was when the study of his turbulent life began. One of these problems is determining the place of this king among other rulers of the Hellenistic east. After all, Mithridates VI is noticeably different both from the “classical” Hellenistic kings and from the Parthian or Armenian rulers. This question has been raised in historiography more than once, but its many facets force us to return to it again and again.
In one of his recent works, the largest modern researcher of the history of Mithridates Eupator, B. McGing, expressed the opinion now dominant in science, and coinciding with his personal, opinion on this issue: “The Hellenism of Eupator includes so many aspects that we cannot resist the temptation to think , as if he and his family had become in every respect a Greek dynasty, to doubt whether the kingdom of Mithridates had not become in every respect a Greek monarchy. I would like to emphasize here that Iranian principles continued to retain their importance throughout the reign of Mithridates Eupator.”
While generally agreeing with this view of the problem, the author of this article still sees a number of aspects that need to be examined in more detail in order to identify the ideas of Mithridates VI himself and his attitude towards his Iranian roots and Hellenistic borrowings. Most clearly, in our opinion, these aspects will be visible when analyzing the available evidence about the family of the Pontic ruler. Moreover, specifically about his family, since earlier layers associated with the ancestors of Mithridates VI, as not related to his will and actions, will remain outside the scope of this study.

Wives of Mithridates VI Eupator

According to the marriage tradition established in the Pontic kingdom, local monarchs chose wives from among their sisters or Seleucid princesses, usually bearing the name Laodice(2). Kinship with the Seleucids, of course, increased the international authority of the country and the degree of Hellenization of the Pontic court, which naturally affected the marriage sphere. Marriages with sisters were also not a sign of barbarism; the Lagids, for example, whom no one ever called barbarians, used this custom very often (3); this form of marriage was also practiced in the ruling house of the Seleucids.
Mithridates VI Eupator did not depart from this tradition: it is known that he married his sister Laodice. It is possible that before marriage this princess had a different name. The fact is that Mithridates VI also had another sister named Laodice (see below about her), and therefore it is unlikely that in the same family children at the same time were called by the same name; It’s difficult to even give such an example.
The marriage of Mithridates VI Eupator and his sister Laodice, apparently, was a possible compromise between the king and the opposing palace group led by his mother - a group pushed out of power, but not yet completely defeated. The marriage took place, based on the age of Mithridates VI, after the deprivation of power of the widow of Mithridates V, Euergetes. Getting his sister as a wife, Mithridates VI (perhaps, on the contrary, his opponents) wanted to see in her the eldest woman of the Pontic royal house, and this one, according to tradition, bore the Seleucid name Laodice. For that era, the name had enormous propaganda significance: for example, just by changing the name, Mithridates VI and Nicomedes III gave legitimacy to their own children who were placed on the throne of other countries (Cappadocia and Paphlagonia, respectively). This probably explains the presence in the sources of two daughters with the same name from the same father, and possibly the same mother, since they (Laodice) both became queens, and therefore both were legitimate royal daughters (5).
This version can also be confirmed by the story of Laodice the Younger’s betrayal of Mithridates VI Eupator, the attempt to poison him and the subsequent execution of her and others guilty of this. A conspiracy, real or imagined, is clearly visible here, the result of which was the execution of those guilty or disliked by the king. Moreover, there is a version according to which the very trip of Mithridates VI across Asia, during which these events began, was caused by the weakness of the king, who was actually forced out of his palace. From the messages of Justin and Sallust it follows that Laodice was executed, but in historiography there is an opinion that this is not so, and the message about the execution of Laodice is a consequence of the pro-Roman literary tradition hostile to Mithridates VI (6). In any case, after the death of Laodice, Mithridates VI Eupator did not choose another sister as his wife, although, as is clear from the sources, he had them, and, most likely, at least some of them were at an age when they could still have children (see below for more on this).
The son of Mithridates VI and Laodice, whom Justin reports, according to T. Reinach, was the future king of Cappadocia - Ariarat IX (7). Ariarat IX was born - however, at birth he also probably received a different name - in 109/108 BC, and at the age of eight he became king of Cappadocia, that is, in 100/101 BC ( 8) . This Ariarat helped Mithridates VI in the war for Cappadocia, and was later poisoned by him.
T. Mommsen, in his vivid portrait of Mithridates VI, gives a short but very characteristic remark about the king’s harem, seeing in this one of the signs of his Asian way of life (9). T. Reinak compares the gynaecium of Mithridates VI with the Sultan's seraglio, likening the difference in the status of wives and concubines to the differences in the status of sultanas and concubines established in the harems of the Turkish sultans. Most subsequent authors accepted this point of view without objection or passed it by.
However, it should be noted that all the other wives of Mithridates VI, except Laodice, were Greek, and none of them came from the royal family. The king practiced marriages with commoners, as was customary among the Pergamon Attalids (10). Apparently, Mithridates VI wanted in this way to receive the support of the citizens of the policies, previously part of the Pegamian kingdom, and now located in the Roman province of Asia.
So, from sources we know the names of five women of Mithridates VI, whose status is either exactly royal or close to it:
1. Laodice (about her, see above); 2. Monima; 3. Stratonics; 4. Berenice; 5. Hypsicracy. Let's analyze all available information about them.
Monima from Stratonicea. As Plutarch reports about Monim: “... when at one time the king sought her favor and sent her 15,000 gold pieces, she refused everything until he signed a marriage contract with her and proclaimed her queen, sending her a diadem” (11 ). Monima's father Philopoemen became the “observer” (bishop) over Ephesus, which apparently was one of the conditions of the marriage contract. During the anti-Mithridates uprising in Ephesus, Philopoemen most likely died, since we no longer have news of his activities. The marriage between Mithridates VI and Monima apparently took place around 88 BC, during the period of the king's greatest successes in the first war with Rome.
The king's feelings for Monima were probably really strong; This is also confirmed by Plutarch’s testimony about the “obscene” correspondence between the king and his wife discovered by Pompey in the New Fortress.
Monima's further fate is sad: so that she does not fall into the hands of the Romans, she is killed by order of the king.
Stratonik. Unlike Laodice and Monima, whose status can be accurately defined as royal, the position of Stratonice is unknown. Plutarch calls her a concubine, Appian does not know whether she is a concubine or a wife, Cassius Dio calls her a wife.
Stratonica, who replaced Monima in the heart of the king, was of absolutely no noble birth. Talking about her acquaintance with the king at a feast, Plutarch emphasizes the baseness of her family and does not even mention the name of her father; our other sources are silent about this. The city from which she came is also unknown.
It is all the more surprising in this regard that Mithridates entrusted Stratonika with the management of the fortress with the treasury. Stratonica handed over the fortress and treasures to Pompey in exchange for a promise to spare the life of her son from the king, Xifar. Mithridates, having learned about this, in order to punish the traitor, executed Xifar. According to T. Reinach, Stratonika’s act is explained by jealousy of the position that Hypsicratia occupied near the king (12).
The further fate of Stratonica is unknown to us, however, given the fact that Pompey left most of the treasures of Mithridates VI in her ownership, it would not be an exaggeration to say that she spent the rest of her life in prosperity.
Berenice of Chios. Her name is mentioned only in Plutarch's text. Describing the tragedy in Pharnacia, when the king’s wives and concubines killed themselves on his orders so as not to fall into the hands of the Romans, Plutarch also reports that Berenice and her mother were poisoned.
Hypsicracy. We know about this woman that she accompanied Mithridates VI after his defeat by Gnaeus Pompey. Hypsicratia was dressed like a Persian warrior and behaved accordingly, caring for the king and his war horse. Plutarch calls her a concubine, Valery Maxim, Eutropius and Festus, who relies on him, call her the wife of the king.
Its functions under the king were so unusual that Mithridates VI called it not Hypsicratia, but Hypsicrates. This circumstance, as well as a hint of the king’s sympathy for the beauty of the young man, even allowed us to make an assumption about the unconventional orientation of the Pontic ruler, which seems completely incredible to us.
According to Valery Maxim, Hypsicratia accompanied the king during his campaign against the Bosporus, but further traces of her fate are lost. From the work of Orosius it is known that before he died, Mithridates VI gave poison to his wives and concubines, but we do not know whether Hypsicratia was among them.
The image of Hypsicratia, which found its way into the works of ancient authors, is close to the image of the mythological women warriors of the Amazons; perhaps this is due to the tendency of Mithridates to imitate Alexander the Great, who, as is known, according to legend, married the queen of these warriors.
So, Stratonice, Berenice and Hypsicratia - who are they: wives or concubines? An analysis of the sources rather inclines us to the second version. It is this status that Plutarch defines for them, who, as is known, relied, when describing the Asian company of Pompey, on the work of Theophanes of Mytilene. In this case, this source is reliable for us, since Theophanes accompanied Pompey on this campaign and was undoubtedly aware of these details. The only doubt raised is by Stratonika, to whom the king entrusted strictly secret information about the secret treasury (see more about this above). The answer, it seems to us, is found in Appian, who reports that Mithridates “being so prudent and resilient, had only one weakness - in pleasure with women.”
Of course, in addition to the five above-mentioned wives (concubines), Mithridates VI entered into rather long love alliances with other women. So sources tell us about a certain Adobogion, a concubine of Mithridates VI and, possibly, the mother of his son, known as Mithridates of Pergamon. This Adobogion, a Galatian woman judging by her name, was later the wife of the Galatian tetrarch Menodotus (13).
There were also other concubines whose names are unknown; They were the daughters of the noblest people of the kingdom, and it was they who were freed and sent to their relatives by Pompey. Appian says that “the eunuch Bacchus... killed his (Mithridates - K.G.) sisters, wives and concubines.” Plutarch also reports about the “Scythian wives” of Mithridates VI during the triumph of Pompey. According to Orosius, some wives and concubines of Mithridates died with him. If we consider that information about the wives and concubines of Mithridates VI mainly relates to the period of the end of the Third Mithridatic War, then we can safely assume the presence of many others, information about which either did not reach us or did not make it into history at all.
Apparently, there were also children of Mithridates VI from his concubines, but they were not considered legitimate. This is exactly what Mithridates of Pergamon, son of Adobogion, should be, as well as Archelaus, the son of the Pontic strategist of the same name, who claimed that he was actually the son of Mithridates VI Eupator. To believe, based on the current state of the sources, that Mithridates Eupator was their father, as well as the opposite, is unproven.
As we see, in the matter of choosing wives, Mithridates VI was guided by women of non-royal origin (14). Apart from his sister Laodice, he did not enter into a marriage alliance with any princess. Apparently, the support of the Greeks of the Roman province of Asia, from which his wives came, was more important to him than alliances with Bithynia, Egypt, Parthia or any other kingdoms. Perhaps Mithridates VI Eupator did not want to receive his wife from the hands of her relative - the king, since, in this case, becoming his son-in-law, he seemed to fall under someone else's, even purely nominal, authority.
Polygamy is characteristic not only of the Pontic ruler; moreover, a direct analogy arises here with Alexander the Great, whom Mithridates VI Eupator sought to imitate in everything, and even with the Macedonian royal house in general.
The author of this article is more inclined to the version according to which Mithridates VI Eupator was so woman-loving that he proceeded in matrimonial matters solely from his own desires, and not from any far-sighted political calculations. This circumstance brings him closer to the classical Hellenistic monarchs, many of whom also had a significant number of mistresses, but never more than one (of course, at the same time) main wife, coming from an influential royal house. The settlement of these women in a guarded palace seems absolutely natural, and most likely the same practice existed in other royal courts of the Hellenistic world; therefore, to see this as something typically Orientalist is unfounded (15).

Sisters of Mithridates VI Eupator

Ancient authors brought to us the names of the five sisters of Mithridates VI: 1.Laodice I; 2.Laodice II (about her, see above); 3. Roxana; 4. Statera; 5. Nisa.
Laodice I is the wife of the Cappadocian king Ariarathes VI. The exact date and circumstances of this marriage are unknown. It is traditionally believed that it followed the invasion of Cappadocia by Mithridates V Euergetes, mentioned by Appian (16). According to Pompey Trogus, Laodicea I, after the death of her husband, ruled together with her son Ariarathes VII, then married the Bithynian king Nicomedes III (17) and helped him capture Cappadocia. After the invasion of the country by the troops of Mithridates, she was apparently forced to go to Bithynia to her new husband (18).
Roxana and Stateira. It is known about them that they took refuge in Pharnacia when Mithridates, fearing that they would fall into the hands of the Romans, ordered them to die. The king did not marry them off and they “stayed as girls until they were forty years old” (19).
Nisa. Another sister of Mithridates VI was imprisoned by him in one of the fortresses and released by Lucullus. Perhaps it was she who was subsequently carried out in the triumph of Pompey, although this is surprising: after all, having freed Nysa, Lucullus was supposed to lead her in his triumph. Therefore, it is possible that Mithridates also had a sixth sister, bearing a name unknown to us.
Thus, we see that Mithridates VI did not marry off any of his sisters; moreover, most likely, throughout his reign they were isolated from the court. The reason here apparently lies in the personal characteristics of the Pontic ruler, who suffered major troubles from his two sisters (Laodice I and Laodice II). Here we see “Oriental despotism” more clearly, but in both Syria and Egypt the sisters of the monarchs were completely dependent on their will.

Sons of Mithridates VI Eupator

Ancient authors brought to us the names of the eleven sons of Mithridates VI Eupator: 1. Artaphernes; 2. Mahar(21) ; 3. Pharnaces; 4. Xifar; 5. Darius; 6. Xerxes; 7. Oxatr; 8. Mithridates the Younger; 9. Arkafiy; 10. Exipodr; 11. Ariarat (see above about him).
As we see, the sons of Mithridates Eupator, unlike his wives, all have Persian names. This fact speaks in favor of the dominance of Orientalism in the family of the Pontic king, but perhaps this is simply a tribute to religious tradition.
The four younger sons captured in the rebellious Phanagoria have traditionally Persian names: Artaphernes, Darius, Xerxes, Oxater. Since they received their names during the heyday of Mithridates Eupator, we can conclude that the names were given to them for the Iranians, and not for the Greeks, for whom they could appear under some Greek epithets, similar to those that Mithridates Eupator himself had .
During the first war against Rome, Mithridates the Younger, Arcafius and also Ariarat were already adults. They were probably followed by Artaphernes, born in 104 BC. e., Machar and Pharnaces, born in 97 BC. and Xifar. Finally, the sons captured during the rebellion in Phanagoria followed. After this rebellion, Mithridates killed his other son Exipodrus: Orosius reports information about this, but other authors do not report about it. We know little about Artaphernes, but he is nevertheless mentioned in Pompey's triumph.
As is indisputably clear from the sources, princes are used as they grow up in administrative and military positions. Mithridates Eupator even transfers part of his powers to them when he is away. Mithridates strives to stop dynastic strife. However, there are indications to suspect that such things did happen. We know from Plutarch that while Mithridates was in Pergamon, he appointed one of his sons as ruler of other territories, to whom Pontus and the Bosporus were allocated. It was probably Mithridates the Younger.
Firstly, it was he who took his father’s name, traditional for the dynasty, which was no longer accidental, and could indicate his status as an heir. Secondly, Mithridates the Younger was near his father in Asia and fought against Fimbria, while the other eldest son Arcathius was in Greece.
You can try to figure out which of the wives of Mithridates Eupator was the mother of one or another of his children by comparing the year the king married them and the year when he took a new wife, but this method is unlikely to be completely reliable for reconstruction.

Daughters of Mithridates VI Eupator

Mithridates VI used his numerous daughters, as was customary at that time, “for their intended purpose,” that is, he married them off to his allies, thus securing a political agreement with marriage bonds. Mithridates VI became the father-in-law, and, therefore, the eldest in the concluded alliance, which naturally increased his international authority. In addition, the transfer of her daughter to her new master, her husband, was apparently regarded as a very valuable, truly royal gift: after all, the value of a woman descended from such a powerful ruler was immeasurably higher than any other. As we will see, Mithridates VI used all these aspects of marriage relations very skillfully, acquiring great political dividends in return for the daughter he gave away. In this regard, one cannot but agree with the statement of the Spanish researcher L. Ballesteros Pastor: “With regard to the daughters, we can conclude that Mithridates used them as an instrument in his foreign policy.”
Mithridates VI was well aware that his daughters were his capital; this can be seen from the fact that, leaving his wives and sisters in Pharnacia, which was subsequently captured by the Romans, he took his daughters with him to the Bosporus.
In total, Mithridates VI had 8 daughters known to us by name from surviving ancient sources: 1. Dripetina. 2. Cleopatra I. 3. Athenaida. 4. Mithridatis. 5. Nisa. 6. Cleopatra II. 7. Eupatra. 8. Orsabaris.
Dripetina. The year of her birth is unknown to us, but apparently she is the eldest legitimate daughter of Mithridates VI, since Valery Maximus reports that she was born to Laodice, the king’s sister-wife. Due to illness, Drypetina was left by Mithridates VI in the fortress of Sinoria under the supervision of the faithful eunuch Menophilus. The betrayal of the fortress garrison, which opened the gates to Pompey's legate Manlius Priscus, forced Menophilus to kill Drepentina, and then himself, so as not to fall into the hands of enemies
Cleopatra. Cleopatra was married to the King of Armenia Tigranes II in 94 BC. The year of her birth is not known to us. The alliance with Tigran II, sealed by marriage, turned out to be very beneficial for Mithridates VI. As for Cleopatra, she most likely had a fairly influential position at her husband’s court.
Athenaida. Next in seniority we know the daughter of Mithridates VI, who was betrothed to the king of Cappadocia, Ariobarzanes I. Appian reports: “Considering it unacceptable that a war was being waged against Mithridates, who had concluded an agreement with the Romans, Sulla sent Aulus Gabinius to convey to Murena the previous strict order not to fight with Mithridates, and Mithridates and Ariobarzanes to reconcile with each other. At this meeting, Mithridates betrothed his four-year-old daughter to Ariobarzanes, and under this pretext he agreed to own what was in his hands from Cappadocia, and in addition to this he appropriated other parts of this country, treated everyone and awarded everyone monetary rewards for the best toasts and treats , jokes and songs, as he usually did. Only Gabinius did not touch anything. Thus the second war between Mithridates and the Romans ended approximately in the third year.”
Apparently, the young daughter of Mithridates VI was betrothed not to the old man Ariobarzanes I, but to his son and heir Ariobarzanes II, since from the letters of Cicero we know that the mother of Ariobarzanes III was the daughter of Mithridates VI - Athenaida. This marriage, like the marriage of his other daughter, Cleopatra, brought good political dividends to Mithridates VI in the form of some part of the territory of Cappadocia.
The engagement, judging by Appian's text, took place at the very end of the Second Mithridatic War in 82 BC. The princess's name refers to Athens, which sided with Mithridates VI. Mithridates VI could name his daughter Athenaida only before their fall, which occurred on March 1, 86 BC. Consequently, and this also fits the testimony of Appian, Athenaida was born in the winter - spring of 86 BC.
Miridatis and Nissa. They were to marry the Lagids, kings of Egypt and Cyprus respectively. But the marriages did not take place due to the defeat of Mithridates VI in the war with Rome. Both daughters were with their father until the last moment and in 63 BC. poisoned themselves so as not to fall into the hands of the Romans.
Cleopatra II. It is known about this daughter of Mithridates VI that she was in Phanagoria at the time of the uprising of this city against the king. However, unlike the other children of the king, she was not at a loss and resisted the rebels. Admired by her courage, Mithridates sent her help and thereby saved her. The further fate of Cleopatra II is unknown. There is no doubt that this woman is not the same Cleopatra who was married to the King of Armenia Tigran II - she is another daughter of the Pontic ruler. She may have received her name after the death of the latter, already as an adult. If this is so, then Mithridates VI was preparing her for marriage with one of the “strong” kings, giving her more weight by replacing her name with a more significant one.
Eupatra and Orsabaris, who were carried out in Pompey's triumph. It is possible that Orsabaris was captured, along with other unnamed daughters of Mithridates VI, whom he sent as brides for his future Scythian leaders - allies. In the political situation that had arisen at that time, this would have been a very successful alliance for Mithridates. But the soldiers accompanying the princesses handed them over to the Romans. Eupatra was captured and also handed over to the Romans by the rebel Phanagorians led by Castor.
A number of the names of the daughters of Mithridates VI are Greek, a number are Persian, some are derived from his names (Mithridatis and Eupatra), the absence of the name Laodice is symptomatic. This is apparently due to the king’s desire to mix up names and be equally “his own”, both for the Greeks and for the indigenous population of Pontus. Unlike the king's sons, who have exclusively Persian, mostly royal names, the Greek names of his daughters are of purely Seleucid origin.

Other relatives of Mithridates VI Eupator

It is interesting that the name of the only relative of Mithridates (24) known to us, who was not related to him in the first degree, is Greek - Phoenix. This man commanded the vanguard of Mithridates' army against Lucullus and then defected to the Romans. This message from Appian leads some modern researchers to believe that other relatives of the king could have held high military and administrative positions. This is also confirmed by the fact that the father of one of Mithridates’ wives, Monima, Philopoemen became an “observer” (bishop) over Ephesus. However, this gives absolutely nothing for our research, since this state of affairs is natural both for the court of any eastern ruler and for systems of government of the most classical Hellenistic states.

To summarize this study, it can be noted that the family “policy” of Mithridates VI Eupator, in general, was traditional for Hellenistic rulers, although it had some distinctive features caused not so much by the “orientalism” of the king, but by his personal characteristics, which, of course, were largely based on his Iranian roots. What is important for us is that in the eyes of the Greeks, Mithridates, as far as his family affairs were concerned, looked almost the same as other classical Hellenistic monarchs.

An energetic and capable person with enormous physical strength. He did not have a systematic education, but knew 22 languages, was familiar with the best representatives of the Hellenistic culture of his time, wrote a number of works on natural history and was considered a patron of science and art. However, along with this, he was distinguished by superstition, treachery and cruelty. He was a typical Asian despot.

He could not immediately inherit his father's royal throne, which legally belonged to him, because due to the machinations of his mother and guardians, he had to hide, fearing for his own life. This is what largely predetermined the firmness and decisiveness of character and belligerence of Mithridates VI Eupator.

But even now it seems possible, assessing the totality of all the conditions of Mithridates’ activity, to recognize him as an outstanding ruler of his time. First of all, because he was considered as such by his contemporaries and the immediate subsequent generations of the ancient era. It is enough to quote the assessment of a Roman historian of the 1st century. AD Velleius Paterculus, whom one would never suspect of affection for the Pontic ruler: “Mithridates, king of Pontus, a man who cannot be kept silent or spoken of with disdain, in war full of determination, distinguished by military valor, sometimes great for his luck, but always with courage, was a leader in plans, a warrior in battles, in hatred of the Romans - second Hannibal"(Vel., Pat., II, 18). .

Beginning of the reign

The Greek states and the Bosporan kingdom gave Mithridates Eupator considerable funds, bread, fish and other food for his army. The “barbarian” peoples who lived to the north and east of the possessions of Pontus regularly supplied mercenaries to the royal army.

Mithridates dreamed of creating a powerful state capable of becoming the successor to the Hellenistic dynasties. He asserted his influence on the eastern borders of Rome not only by force of arms, but also by diplomatic methods. So, he married his daughter to the Armenian king Tigran and could rely on his son-in-law’s troops if necessary.

However, on the path of the Bosporan kingdom, Mithridates saw a formidable obstacle - Roman expansion to the East. Mithridates VI Eupator decided to assert his dominant position not only in Asia Minor, but also in the territories adjacent to it, primarily in Greece.

He began solving this problem by creating powerful armed forces of the Bosporan kingdom - the army and navy. Mithridates Eupator managed to assemble a huge army for that time. The army was hired, and the royal treasury had large funds for this thanks to the stably collected taxes in the Pontic state. According to ancient sources, Mithridates's navy consisted of up to 400 warships.

The creation of such an armada was possible because among his subjects there were a sufficient number of merchant sailors and fishermen (fish, salted and dried, was one of the country's main exports). A large number of ships made it possible to transport thousands of troops to the southern Black Sea coast and wage war against the strong Roman fleet.

Mithridatic Wars

First Mithridatic War

During the First Mithridatic War (-84 BC), the Pontic expelled the Romans from Asia Minor and Greece, defeating such famous commanders as Cassius, Manius Aquilius and Oppius in several battles. Mithridates more than once demonstrated high military leadership before his opponents and became one of the most hated enemies of the Eternal City.

Second Mithridatic War

Third Mithridatic War

This Third Mithridatic War (74 BC) went on with varying success. Rome took the events in Bithynia in Asia Minor seriously and sent numerous troops and a fleet there, which had previously cleared the Mediterranean of the pirates of Cilicia. The consul Lucius Licinius Lucullus was appointed commander-in-chief in the East, with whose name the first significant military successes of Roman weapons in the new war against the Pontic kingdom are associated.

Initially, the Romans suffered defeats. Near the city of Nicopolis, the Roman general Domitius Calvinus, having under his command one legion and auxiliary troops recruited in Asia Minor, encountered a Pontic army led by the king's son Pharnaces. After the first onslaught of the enemy, the Asian allies of the Romans fled from the battlefield, and only the resilience of the Roman legion prevented the defeat from taking on catastrophic proportions.

A major naval battle took place in 74 BC. e. at Chalcedon. The Roman fleet under the command of Rutilius Nudon, when the Pontic fleet appeared at sea, tried to leave the harbor and form a battle line. However, the Pontic forces pushed the Romans back into the fortified harbor of Chalcedon. It seemed that this was the end of the naval battle.

However, the Pontians thought differently than their enemy. They destroyed enemy barriers at the entrance to the Chalcedonian harbor, into which their warships immediately burst into. During fierce boarding battles, all 70 ships of the Roman naval commander Rutilius Nudon were destroyed. This was a severe blow to Roman naval power, which was one of the reasons for the prolongation of the Third Mithridatic War.

After these events, consul Lucullus inflicted several defeats on the troops of King Mithridates Eupator, skillfully using all the advantages of a modern, well-trained and disciplined Roman army. Mithridates was driven out of Bithynia and Pontus by the enemy. Lucullus forced him to flee to his son-in-law, Tigranes of Armenia. The latter’s refusal to hand over his father-in-law to the Roman consul served as a pretext for war between Rome and Armenia.

Mithridates

There is no name more famous than Mithridates. His life and his death are a significant part of Roman history,” wrote the famous French playwright, probably still a little prone to exaggeration, Jean Racine. Meanwhile, Mithridates died in Kerch. This happened in the first century BC, and Kerch was then called not Kerch, but Panticapaeum, and this city was the capital of the Bosporan state.

The story that brought the Pontic king Mithridates from Asia Minor to Panticapaeum, as a last refuge, begins from afar. First, its military leader Diophantus appeared in Crimea, and repeatedly, with his troops. The name of Diophantus was preserved for us by a decree, the text of which in the form of an inscription on a stone was found at the end of the last century among the ruins of Chersonesus. In this decree, Diophantus is named as a friend and benefactor of Chersonese, who defeated the Scythian king Palak, son of Skilur. “When the Scythian king Palak suddenly attacked Diophantus with a large horde, he put the Scythians, who had hitherto been considered invincible, to flight, and thus arranged for King Mithridates Eupator to be the first to hoist a trophy over them,” says the decree. However, in Tauris Diophantus learned not only victories...

He, the envoy of the powerful Mithridates, some time after the victory over Palak, was forced to flee from Savmak, who led the uprising on the Kerch Peninsula, and he fled so that he barely managed to jump on the ship that was sent for him from Chersonesos. True, having reached this glorious, but nevertheless slave-owning city, the commander came to his senses and in the main city square, in a voice high with anger, he called on the wrath of the gods on the heads of those who refused to help him.

The Chersonesites, wrapped in their white robes, listened to Diophantus attentively. They nodded with their big noses - how to refuse? Didn't they themselves call him for help? Will we have to turn to him again and ask for protection from the Scythians? The Scythians scoured their very walls, burned fields, trampled vineyards, and tried to take advantage of the benefits from trade that so far had only been enjoyed by the Greek reseller cities.

In exactly the same way, the Scythians besieged the Bosporus, and there, too, the wives hurried their husbands: something needs to be decided about this! If you cannot defend the city, send messengers overseas to Pontus, call Mithridates' army for help!

Messengers were sent, and soon the first trireme from Pontus flew into the Chersonesos harbor, followed by the second, third, tenth - without number!

The Chersonesos poured out of their homes: Diophantus has come again! Oh, King of Pontus, Mithridates, how fast, how strong and glorious you are!

Diophantus, who led an entire army to the shores of the peninsula, this time, in addition to military victories, also won diplomatic victories: it was on his advice and insistence that the Bosporans decided to transfer their kingdom into the hands of Mithridates, king of Pontus, ruler of many, many lands. It is truly better to live under the arm of a strong man than to defend your own freedom at your own risk in the middle of an open field!..

“Mithridates will not let us be offended!” - this was the most popular phrase in those days among the residents of the Greek cities of Chersonesos, Panticapaeum, Myrmekia, Nymphaeum. True, the fishermen of Tiritaki asked each other: would Mithridates himself want to offend his new subjects? But their voices did not influence the course of events.

Diophantus brought cruel order to the peninsula. He finally managed to strangle the uprising of Savmak, drive away the Scythians, push back the Tauri, and intimidate everyone who encroached on the freedom of ancient cities. Still would! These cities would be useful to Mithridates himself in his long, almost half-century-long war with Rome! More precisely, in those wars in which, and not always successfully, the best commanders, the flower of Roman history, opposed Mithridates. Since the sixth grade we have known the names: Sulla, Lucullus, Pompey.

In the mountains of Macedonia, on the coast of Greece, soldiers born in Chersonesus and Panticapaeum died. There was not enough bread, meat, gold, new ships and hardy horses. For a long time now, both the Chersonesos and the Bosporans realized how wrong they were when they decided: it was better to live under the arm of a strong man than to die for freedom in an open field.

...Tsar Mithridates has long grown old, but has not calmed down; for a long time now the Bosporus has been ruled by his son, who is also no longer young, but peace is not visible in any distance. Meanwhile, the Bosporans are peering intently into this sun-bleached distance: will it bring something?

Now is the time: wait every hour - either the Roman fleet will enter the harbor, or Mithridates will burst into Panticapaeum, destroying his own subjects, some for sluggishness, some for treason...

But why does he need to go to Panticapaeum? Even his son had long ago, so as not to miscalculate, sold himself to the Romans, sending them grain and other supplies, which, having robbed the Bosporans, he had prepared for his father.

...However, Mithridates still enters Panticapaeum and gloomily looks at the remains of the burning fleet, which his son burned, fleeing from his father’s wrath. Well, Mithridates will still argue with fate! Now the Bosporus will become its stronghold, this piece of land, so clearly visible from the high mountain of the Acropolis.

Mithridates stood at its top, huge and old, but his twisted muscles still tensed under his dark skin, like under the skin of an animal ready to jump. And the nostrils flared, and dry, strong legs stepped on the trampled grass impatiently: the king was ready to go to the hated Rome for the fourth time.

And, who knows, maybe he would have gone, if not for a new betrayal: the second son, Pharnaces, also went over to the side of Rome. And down there, in the square near the harbor, where smoke still clouds the water, he is crowned king! The garrison of the fortress is on his side, and now high walls guard Mithridates himself, and there is no road out of the ring...

But the king does not want to surrender alive. The thought of shame is so scary that he even laughs, moving his short neck from side to side. The poison is always with him, and so he pours yellow hemlock balls onto his huge palm and hands them to his daughters. Brides of the kings of Egypt and Crete, they also prefer death to shame. But death does not take him, hemlock is powerless in front of a powerful body, an indomitable spirit. However, there is a very prosaic explanation for this. Even from childhood, the future ruler of Pontus knew: the Romans would try to kill him, most likely with hemlock poison, as they did to many who stood in their way. And only hemlock helps against hemlock: you just need to accustom yourself to it gradually. So, I didn’t take the hemlock, only the sword remained. According to legend, the king ordered himself to be stabbed. Others said differently: he threw himself on a sword stuck into the ground with the tip up.

...But there is no grave or tomb of Mithridates in Kerch. Just like the once living but defeated Scythian Savmak, the dead Mithridates was taken to Sinope, the capital of Pontus. There he was buried not only without desecration, but with the honors that Rome was generous with.

In Kerch, in memory of Mithridates, only the name of the mountain remained, from where the king last looked at the sea, at the green hills around, at the white cubes of the houses of Myrmekia and Tiritaki...

Nothing in the city today reminds us of Mithridates. The mountain that was once named after him has a different glory. Perhaps the remains of antique columns on its side, lying in the dust and in the golden blossoms of dandelions, someone out of ignorance will mistake for Mithridat’s tomb, as Pushkin once did when traveling through the Crimea with the family of General Raevsky. And, perhaps, a predatory trireme will flash in his imagination like a narrow glare of the sun, but in a moment it will melt away. Because just at this time, interrupting the mirage and puffing busily, a small tugboat with the loud name “Red Army” will pass into the harbor and bump into the pier...

E.G. Krishtof

Mithridates VI Eupator

With its annexation to the Pontic kingdom, Bosporus became the most important part of a huge state in the Black Sea region, which included, in addition to Pontus, Chersonesos and its choir *, Olbia, Colchis, Armenia Minor and some Asia Minor regions. During the long struggle of Mithridates with Rome, the Bosporus remained the base from which the Pontic king drew not only funds to equip and feed the army, but also soldiers for his troops. In the end, it became his last stronghold.

The wars of Mithridates with Rome shook the entire East. They turned out to be the final stage of resistance that the Eastern Greek world offered to the enslaver Rome. In this struggle, the personality of Mithridates most closely corresponded to the image of the leader of the defending East.

Mithridates VI Eupator was an extraordinary man in all respects1. Its origins are connected with the Achaemenidian dynasty and with the descendants of Alexander the Great and Seleucus. This gave Mithridates special significance in the eyes of his subjects and surrounded the king’s name with an aura of glory. Gigantic growth, enormous physical strength, indomitable energy and unyielding courage, deep and cunning mind, boundless cruelty - this is how he was preserved in the descriptions of ancient authors. On his orders, a mother, brother, sister, three sons and three daughters were killed or died in captivity.

Mithridates imposed a huge tax on the Bosporan population. Strabo reports that the king annually received from him about half a million poods of grain and large sums of money. All this was required for his wars with Rome. The situation in the Bosporus became especially difficult when Mithridates arrived here after a series of defeats inflicted on him by Rome. The ruler of Pontus was preparing for new wars and for the sake of them he took the most extreme measures in relation to the Bosporus and other subordinate regions.

The Roman historian Appian (2nd century AD) describes Mithridates’ preparations for the war with Rome: “He continued to recruit an army from freemen and slaves and prepared masses of weapons, arrows and military vehicles, sparing neither forest material nor working bulls for production bowstring, he imposed taxes on all his subjects, not excluding the poorest, and the collectors offended many of them.”2

This policy of Mithridates aroused discontent against him in different segments of the population. The Bosporan nobility was dissatisfied with the collapse of maritime trade due to the naval blockade by Rome. She was also alarmed by the fact that Mithridates was recruiting slaves into the army. Even among the troops there was no support for his fantastic plans to go through the Balkans and Italy in order to defeat Rome there. A denouement was brewing. A conspiracy arose in Panticapaeum led by the son of Mithridates Pharnaces.

According to Appian, events unfolded like this.

At night, Pharnaces went to the camp of the Roman deserters and persuaded them to desert their father. That same night he sent his agents to other military camps. At dawn, the Roman deserters raised a war cry, followed by gradually other troops. The sailors most inclined to change were the first to shout, followed by all the others. Mithridates, awakened by this cry, sent to find out what those shouting wanted. They replied that they wanted to have his young son as king, instead of the old man who had killed many of his sons, military leaders and friends. Mithridates went out to talk with them, but the garrison guarding the acropolis did not let him out, as they sided with the rebels. They killed the horse of Mithridates, who fled. Mithridates found himself locked up. Standing on the top of the mountain, he saw the troops below crowning the kingdom of Pharnaces. He sent envoys to him, demanding free passage, but not one of them returned. Realizing the hopelessness of his situation, Mithridates took out the poison that he always carried with him with his sword. His two daughters who were with him, the brides of the Egyptian and Cypriot kings, did not allow him to drink until they received and drank the poison first. It had an immediate effect on them; it did not have any effect on Mithridates, since the king was accustomed to constantly taking poisons to protect himself from poisoning. Preferring death to captivity, he asked the chief of the Celts, Bithoit, to provide him with one last favor. And Bitoit, touched by the words addressed to him, stabbed the king, fulfilling his request.

The Romans granted power over the Bosporus to Pharnaces (63-47 BC), proclaimed him a friend and ally of Rome, and in the coming years did not interfere in Bosporan affairs. Later, Pharnaces took advantage of the temporary weakening of Roman power in the Black Sea region and tried to regain his father’s possessions. He first of all besieged and took Phanagoria, to which Rome had granted autonomy as a reward for the uprising against Mithridates, and then with a large army went through the Caucasus to Asia Minor, where he reconquered part of his father’s possessions. But in the battle of the city of Zela he was defeated by the Roman commander Julius Caesar, who sent his famous message of victory to Rome: “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Upon returning to the Bosporus, Pharnaces was soon defeated by Asander, whom he left in his place as ruler.

A new stage in the history of the state begins.

Second half of the 1st century. BC e. was a period of consolidation and restoration of economic and political forces for the Bosporus. Asander strengthened his rights to the throne by marrying Pharnaces' daughter Dynamia. He managed to stop attacks on power by the new king of Pontus, the Roman protege of Mithridates VII, and even achieved diplomatic recognition from Rome. Asander ruled for 30 years, and during this time the country's economy was restored. To strengthen the borders of the Bosporan state, he built a fortification system in the form of a rampart about 65 km long with powerful towers. The remains, apparently, of this shaft are still preserved behind the village of Mikhailovka, about 20 km from Kerch. The line of the Asandrov Shaft ran from Lake Uzunlar near Cimmeric to the Sea of ​​Azov. The construction of such a defensive line could only be within the power of a sufficiently powerful state.