Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/1111

MITHRIDATES. from the Tanais to the Tyras, totally defeated the Roxolani, and rendered the whole of the Tauric; Chersonese tributarj^ to the kingdom of Pontus. A fortress called the tower of Neoptolemus, at the mouth of the river Tyras (Dniester), probably marks the extreme limit of liis conquests in that direction ; but he is said to have entered into friendly relations with and possessed much influ- ence over the Getae and other wild tribes, as far as the borders of Thrace and Macedonia. After the death of Parisades, the kingdom of Bosporus itself was incorporated with his dominions. (Strab. vii. p. 306, 307, 309-312, xi. p. 499, xii. p. 540, 541, 555 ; Appian, Mithr. 15 ; Memnon, c. 30 ; Justin, xxxvii. 3 ; Niebuhr, KL Schrift. p. 388 — 390.) While he was thus extending his own so- vereignty, he did not neglect to strengthen himself by forming alliances with his more powerful neigh- bours, especially with Tigranes, king of Armenia, to whom he gave his daughter Cleopatra in mar- riage, as well as with the warlike nations of the Parthians and Iberians. He thus found himself in possession of such great power and extensive re- sources, that he began to deem himself equal to a contest with Rome itself. Many causes of dis- sension had already arisen between them, and the Romans had given abundant proofs of the jealousy with which they regarded the rising greatness of Mithridates, but that monarch had hitherto avoided an open rupture with the republic. Shortly after his accession they had taken advantage of his minority to wrest from him the province of Phrygia, which had been bestowed by Aquillius upon his father. (Justin, xxxviii. 5 ; Appian, Mithr. ii. 57.) At a subsequent period also they had inter- posed to prevent him from making himself master of Paphlagonia, to which kingdom he claimed to be entitled by the will of the last monarch. (Justin, xxxvii. 4.) On both these occasions Mithridates submitted to the imperious mandates of Rome ; but he was far from disposed to acquiesce per- manently in the arrangements thus forced upon him for a time ; and it can hardly be doubted that he was already aiming at the conquest of the neigh- bouring states which enjoyed the protection of the Roman republic, with a view to make himself master of the whole, of Asia. Cappadocia above all appears to have been the constant object of his ambition, as it had indeed been that of the kings of Pontus from a very early period. Ariarathes VI., king of that country, had married Laodice, the sister of Mithridates, notwithstanding which, the latter procured his assassination, through the agency of one Gordius. His design was probably to remove his infant nephews also, and unite Cap- padocia to his own dominions ; but Laodice having thrown herself upon the protection of Nicomedes, king ot Bithynia, he turned his arms against that monarch, Avhom he expelled from Cappadocia, and set up Ariarathes, one of the sons of Laodice, and his own nephew, as king of the country. But it was not long before he found a cause of quarrel with the young man whom he had thus established, in consequence of which he invaded his dominions with a large army, and having invited him to a conference, assassinated him with his own hand. He now placed an infant son of his own, on whom he had bestowed the name of Ariarathes, upon the throne of Cappadocia, but the people rose in re- bellion, and set up the second son of Ariarathes VI. MITHRIDATES. 1097 as their sovereign. Mithridates hereupon invaded Cappadocia again, and drove out this new com- petitor, who died shortly after. But the Roman senate now interfered, and appointed a Cappadocian named Ariobarzanes to be king of that country (b. c. 93). Mithridates did not venture openly to oppose this nomination, but he secretly instigated Tigranes, king of Armenia, to invade Cappadocia, and expel Ariobarzanes. The latter, being wholly- unable to cope with the power of Tigranes, im- mediately fled to Rome ; and Sulla, who was at the time praetor in Cilicia, was appointed to rein- state him, B. c. 92. Mithridates took no part in preventing this ; and clearly as all things were in fact tending to a rupture between him and Rome, he still continued nominally to enjoy the friendship and alliance of the Roman people which had been bestowed by treaty upon his father. (Justin, xxxviii. 1 — 3 ; Appian, Mithr. 10, 12, 14 ; Mem- non, c. 30 ; Plut. Sull. 5.) But this state of things did not last long ; and the death of Nicomedes II,, king of Bithynia, by opening a new field to the ambition of Mithridates, at length brought matters to a crisis. That monarch was succeeded by his eldest son Nicomedes III., but Mithridates took the opportunity, on what pretext we know not, to set up a rival claimant in the person of Socrates, a younger brother of Nicomedes, whose pretensions he supported with an army, and quickly drove Nicomedes out of Bithynia, b. c 90. It appears to have been about the same time that he openly invaded Cappadocia, and for the second time ex- pelled Ariobarzanes from his kingdom, establishing ins own son Ariarathes in his place. Both the fugitive princes had recourse to Rome, where they found ready support: a decree was passed that Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes should be restored to their respective kingdoms, and the execution of it was confided to two consular legates, the chief of whom was M'. Aquillius, while L. Cassius, who commanded in the Roman province of Asia, was ordered to support them with what forces he had at his disposal. (Appian, Mithr. 10, 11, 13; Justin, xxxviii. 3, 5 ; Memnon, c. 30 ; Liv. Epit. Ixxiv.) It is not very easy to understand or account for the conduct of Mithridates at this period, as related to us in the very imperfect accounts which we possess. It seems probable that he was emboldened to make these dii'ect attacks upon the allies of Rome by the knowledge that the arms of the re- public were sufficiently occupied at home by the Social War, which was now devastating Italy. But, although that war did in fact prevent the Romans from rendering any efficient support to the monarchs whose cause they had espoused, Mithri- dates offered no opposition to their proceedings, but yielded once more, as it would seem, to the very name of Rome, and allowed the consular legates and L. Cassius, at the head of a few cohorts only, to reinstate both Nicomedes and Ariobarzanes. He even went so far as to put to death Socrates, whom he had himself incited to lay claim to the throne of Bithynia, and who now, when expelled by the Romans, naturally sought refuge at his court. (Appian, Mithr. 11 ; Justin, xxxviii. 5.) Yet about this time we are told, that ambassadors having been sent to him by the Italian allies that were in arms against Rome to court his alliance, he promised to co-operate with them, when he had first expelled the Romans from Asia. (Diod«