Митридат VI. од Понта, човјек који је пркосио Риму

Khal Drogo

Veoma poznat
Poruka
12.342
Постоји периоди, историјске епохе богатије догађајима, ратовима, великим личностима и промјенама, а I.вијек п.н.е, је један од најбогатијих ако не и најбогатији, посебно када су у питању велике или интригантне личности.

Митридат (грчки;Μιθριδάτης, од староперсијског "дар Митре"), шести свог имена је једна од тих великих личности која ће обиљежити своје вријеме.
О Митридату је доста писао Касије Дион Кокејан (овдје) књиге 31-37 (сачувани су само фрагменти књ. 31-35).

Владар Понта. Ријеч pontos на грчком значи море, а сродна латинска ријеч pontus обиљежава мост. Понтско Kраљевство развило се на обалама Црног мора, које је попут моста спајало његове разбацане посједе.
Понт је уједно био мост међу културама, грчке, персијске, јерменске, скитске. И доживио је врхунац под овим Митридатом, шестим свог имена који је пркосио Риму, ратовао са тројицом највећих војсковођа касне Римске републике, Сулом, Лукулом и Помпејом великим, имао своје вријеме, постигао много, имао планове за још више, пуно више, но на крају како то и бива увијек, напуштен и издан од свих, скончао је на тужан начин.

Како и бива са великим људима, имао је турбулентан живот, рано је изгубио оца, са 11 година, сумњало се на мајку, што је код малог Митридата усадило неповјерење, младост је провео у планинама, гдје га је било тешко пронаћи те је научио ловити и штитити се од опасних звијери. Страхујући од мајчиних намјера, почео је узимати отров у малим дозама како би стекао имунитет, та пракса се и данас назива митридатизам.
Након неких седам година умиру му мајка и старији брат, те насљеђује трон.
У складу са персијским обичајима, оженио се сестром Лаодиком, окружио се грчким савјетницима, а сам Митродат је тврдип да вуче поријекло и од персијског цара Дарија и од Александра Великог. Има неки Јован Деретић који опет тврди да бјеше Србин, да се заправо звао Митар, но овај Деретић је познат и као стари зајебант, није му сваку веровати.
Образован, наводно је говорио 22 језика, војску је организирао на македонски начин. Одмах ју је почео користити и кренуто у освајања
Pont.jpg

За двије године освојио је цијелу источну обалу Црнога мора, касније и Крим и неке градове на западној обали.
Поразио је Ските и Тауријце те претворио Грке Босфорског Kраљевства у вазале, убрзо овладао и Анадолијом.
Митридатова експанзионистичка политика довела га је у сукоб са великом силом у настајању, Римом, који се већ проширио на дио Мале Азије.

Бјеше то добра прилика за Митридата, Римљани су били заузети борбом против келтских и германских народа у Алпама те против Нумиђана у сјеверозападној Либији (у тадашњој римској географији континент, назив за простор данашње Африке од Нила до Гибралтара).
Бјеше неустрашив, авантуриста, прерушен је путовао Римском републиком неколико година како би “снимио ситуацију“.
Пронашао је савезника у битинијском краљу Никомеду, освојио је још неке мале краљевине Мале Азије, римске вазале.
Но та су се савезништва распала, и под притиском Рима повукао се.

Окренуо се новом савезнику, моћном јерменском краљу Тиграну великом, давши му кћер Kлеопатру за супругу. Унајмио је сарматске плаћенике и египатске бродаре. Године 89. п.н.е. покренуо је (први Митридатов) рат против Рима, који ће трајати до 85. п.н.е.
Војном силом у комбинацији са дипломатијом наметнуо је своју власт Малој Азији, “ослободилац од римског јарма“, са покореним Римљанима обрачунао се немилосрдно, дао их је погубити најмање 80.000, заплијенивши сву њихову имовину.
О овоме пише Дион (књ.31 овдје);
101 All the Asiatics, at the bidding of Mithridates, massacred the Romans; only the people of Tralles did not personally kill anyone, but hired for the purpose a certain Theophilus, a Paphlagonian, - just as if they themselves were more likely thus to escape destruction, or as if it made any difference to the victims by whom they were to be slaughtered.
2 The Thracians, at the instigation of Mithridates, p471 overran Epirus and the rest of the country as far as Dodona, going even to the point of plundering the temple of Zeus.
Римског управитеља дао је погубити тако да му је полио растаљено злато низ грло, симболизујући римску похлепу. Након 3 деценија наводно је иста судбина задесила Краса након пораза од Парћана код Каре.
Рим бјеше ослабљен грађанским ратовима, ипак одговорили су одлучно, двојица војсковођа, Лукул и Сула, повели су 5 легија и одбацили Митридата назад у Малу Азију, при томе извршивши суров покољ Атињана.
Иако је имао иницијативу, Сула је имао пречих проблема у Риму, и успостављен је релативно повољан мир за Митридата.
Рат се водио углавном по грчким земљама, које су остале разорене и опустошене, и Митридат је поприлично изгубио углед међу Грцима.

Није дуго мировао, помогао му је и римски управитељ у Малој Азији који је кренуо пљачкати Митридатове посједе, и у другом рату (83. – 81. п. н.е) Митридат је извојевао побједу.
Важније, обновио је углед, организовао моћну војску од 130.000 пјешака и 12.000 коњаника, са моћном морнарицом.
Учврстио је везе са јерменским краљем Тиграном, млађе кћери заручио је с краљевима Египта и Кипра, успоставио везе са римским побуњеницима на Пиринејском полуострву, помагао гусаре и спремао се за коначни обрачун са Римом.
И убрзо 74. п.н.е. започиње нови (трећи) рат.
Трећи Митридатов рат описује Касије Дион и то Лукулову кампању у књизи 36 (овдје) и Помпејеву кампању у књизи 37 (овдје).
Након почетних побједа 70.п.н.е. доживљава пораз и приморан је повући се у планине. Тежак период пустошења, син Махар који је управљао Кримом издаје га и прелази на страну Римљана.
Успио се опоравити, лично предводивши своју војску, бива двапут и рањаван до 67.п.н.е. успијева повратити власт над краљевством.
Команду над римском војском преузима Гнеј Помпеј, он мијења тактику, покреће широку офензиву преко Кавказа
Roma_in_Oriente_65bc.jpg

У широкој кампањи обрачунава се са Митридативим савезнцима, побјеђује Ибере са краљем Артосесом, Албанце са краљем Ороесесом (не треба их бркати са племеном Албана у Илирику, народ настањен источно од Колхиде и Иберије, данас сјеверни Азербејџан), приморава их на примирје, убрзо покорава и Тиграна, у коначници у двије битке побјеђује и Митридата. У првој служећи се лукавом варком, намамио је Митридатову супериорну коњицу у клопку, опколио и уништио.

Бјеше то катастрофа за Митридата, спашава главу, бјежи на Крим гдје погубљује сина који га је издао.
И даље амбициозан, канио је окупити скитска племена, удружити се са моћним гетским краљем Буребистом који је владао снажном гетско-дачанском државом, те Дунавом преко Паноније и Алпа извршити инвазију на Рим.

Бива издан и ту је скончао. Постоји више верзија, но он је тада имао 70 годину, то су године када се владар препусти тиховању и ужива у плодовима своје владавине, нису то године за амбициозног човјека, а Митридат бјеше и тада амбициозан, ту је само један крај извјестан и неће бити срећан за човјека који је као мало ко пркосио Риму.
 
Poslednja izmena:
Први Митридатов рат трајао је у времену 89.-85.године п.н.е. Имамо добар документарац који нам описује тај рат;
Првих година рата кампања за Митридата бјеше изузетно успјешна, освојио је готово читаву Анадолију, при томе извршио поменути у уводном посту масакр римских колониста. Рат се преселио у Грчку, међутим ту је Луције Корнелије Сула иако је расплоагао дупло малобројнијом армијом остварио одлучујуће побједе у бици код Херонеје 86.године п.н.е и Орхомена 85.године п.н.е.
Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC)

The Battle of Chaeronea was fought by the Roman forces of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Mithridates' general, Archelaus, near Chaeronea, in Boeotia, in 86 BC during the First Mithridatic War. The battle ended with a complete rout of the Pontic army and a decisive victory for the Romans.

Forces
Photo of an ancient coin shows a clean-shaven man with wavy hair.
King Mithridates VI
Pontic troops
One of Mithridates generals, Taxiles, and a force of around 110,000 men and 10,000 cavalry were sent to join up with Archelaus and his forces in the Elatean plains.[4][5] Baker presents a reduced figure of the force, he cites a Roman army of less than 17,000 thousand, excluding allied troops, and the enemy Pontic army outnumbering those troops 5 to 1, or around 85,000 troops.[6] Delbruck presents both a "supposed" figure of 120,000 troops and a reduced figure of a "more modest" 60,000 Asiatics.[1] Delbruck further makes comments on the available primary sources and specifically refers to "vague and boastful" memoirs of Sulla which were the primary source that other historians of the time used, such as Plutarch.[1]

Mithridates' armies were a compound make-up of Greek and Oriental elements, the infantry was made up of Macedonian style phalanxes, with Pontic phalangists for missile units, and the cavalry a combination of horse and scythe-wheeled chariots.[7]

Sulla's troops
Sulla's forces are approximated to have been around 30,000 men,[1][2] with Baker commenting that of these less than 17,000 were Romans and the rest were composed of Macedonian and Greek allies.[8] Baker, however, doesn't give a concrete value for the number of Macedonian and Greek soldiers involved in the battle, merely noting a disparity of "over three to one" between the Roman and Pontic troops once the allies are accounted for.[8] The Roman forces were composed of veteran Roman legions and some cavalry.[2][9]

Geography
Sulla advanced his army from Athens and into Boeotia, where he met up with Hortensius, who had advanced southward from Thessaly, at Philoboetus.[4][5] Hortensius himself had moved through the mountains with a guide, intent on avoiding an ambush.[4][5] Baker remarks that this movement put Sulla in a favourable position, his supplies were secure, wood and water were plentiful, the roads into Thessaly could be watched and guarded with ease, and the hills provided an advantage.[4][5] Baker describes this position as "commanding the Elatean plain and the valley of Cephisus."[4] Sulla was determined to dictate the time and place of the battle.[8]

Taxiles and his large force had to go north through a defile, before turning into the narrower valley, between Orchomenos and Chaeronea to meet up with Archelaus and his forces.[4][5] The consequence of this was that once Taxiles and his forces arrived, it became impossible for the forces to retreat and instead had to stand and fight.[4] This force was encamped in the valley in a position which allowed the commanders to watch the Roman army.[8] Archelaus intended to pursue a war of attrition, Taxiles with his far larger force, however, was determined to defeat the Romans in battle and insisted on an engagement and, given the circumstances, Archelaus was in no position to refuse.[10]

Prelude
The Pontic forces, encamped in the valley, sent out numerous foraging parties which plundered and burned the countryside.[4][5] Sulla was unable to defend the region with his far smaller force and instead was forced to stay camped up on the hill.[4][5] Instead of remaining idle, Sulla ordered his men to dig entrenchments on the flanks to protect against possible envelopment by cavalry and also ordered the construction of palisades in the front to defend against the chariots.[11] The exercise was twofold in intention, first Sulla sought to ensure the discipline of his soldiers and second, he hoped to tire the soldiers out so that they were more willing to battle.[7][12] When his troops came to him requesting battle, Sulla challenged the men, citing that their new found will to fight was a response to inherent laziness to work, to occupy the hill of Parapotamii.[12] The men agreed to this task, Archelaus had already marked the position for his own men and it became a race between Archelaus' and Sulla's men to occupy the position first.[12] Baker describes this position as "almost impregnable", the occupier had no choice but to turn eastward towards Chaeronea to advance and if action took place here, one army or the other would be fighting at an angle.[12]

Order of battle
For Rome, Sulla was in command of the right flank of the Roman army, the legate Murena on the left, Hortensius and Galba commanded the reserve cohorts in the rear with Hortensius on the left and Galba on the right.[5][9] Finally, Gabinius and one full legion were sent to occupy the town of Chaeronea itself.[9] For Mithridates, Archelaus was in command.[9]

Battle
Sulla opened the engagement with an apparent retreat, he left one unit under Gabinius to occupy and defend the town of Chaeronea, had Murena retreat back onto Mount Thurium, while he himself marched alongside the right bank of the river Cephisus.[9] Archelaus in response marched forth to occupy a position facing Chaeronea and extended a flanking force to occupy Murena's troops at Thurium.[9] Sulla linked up with Chaeronea and extended the Roman line across the valley.[9] Murena's position was the weakest, possibly untenable, to strengthen the position Gabinius recruited some of the locals to help deal with the danger, a proposition which Sulla approved.[9] By this point, Sulla had taken up his position on the right and the battle began.[13]


Photograph of a Roman coin that depicts a man with an aquiline nose.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Murena, assisted by the force of natives from Chaeronea, cautiously launched an attack against the right flank, the flank having been attacked from above is forced down the hill with disastrous consequences and possibly up to 3,000 casualties there.[5][14] In exchange the chariots charged forth against Gabinius who was in the centre, Gabinius withdrew his troops behind defensive stakes thus forcing the chariots to retreat.[14] As the chariots retreated they were met by a barrage of Roman javelins and arrows causing confusion and rendering Archelaus' main infantry line of phalanx vulnerable to attack.[11]

The entrenched Roman legions were then pitched in a battle against the Macedonian style phalanx troops in the centre with missile support in the form of stones and bolts coming from the rear.[15] The phalanx, unable to put up a full charge, engaged the Roman legions.[15] Despite this, the Romans still had to contend against pike phalanx units with their own short swords.[15] In order for the troops to use their short-sword they had to swat away the opposing pikes with their bare hands before drawing themselves near enough to attack.[16]

With the centre engaged, Archelaus extended his right wing in an outflanking maneuver.[5][16] Hortensius attempted to counter, but in doing so left his unit vulnerable to a counterattack.[5][16] In response to this vulnerability, Archelaus' cavalry launched a successful cavalry charge and engaged and surrounded Hortensius' troops.[5][16] Sulla, who had up until this point remained uncommitted in battle, moved quickly to alleviate the pressure on Hortensius' troops.[5][16] Archelaus, recognizing Sulla's maneuver by the dust rising from the ground, recalled some of his cavalry and instead ordered them to attack the weakened Roman right flank.[16]

Murena, still engaged, was then forced to face Taxiles and his troops as well.[16] Hortensius moved in to provide support to Murena while Sulla returned to the right flank where he led a charge against Archelaus' left one.[16] At this point, the Roman lines began to advance forward at all points.[5][16] The weakened left flank of Archelaus was routed and pursued off the field, as the Roman centre began advancing led by Gabinius. Murena and the right flank, despite being in danger, was also advancing forward.[16] The entire Pontic army was routed, being pursued by the Romans.[5] Allegedly, only 10,000 of Archelaus' troops made it back to their camp.[5] Sulla reported that 100,000 of Archelaus' troops were killed, that 14 of his own were missing at the end of the battle and that two of those made it back by the next day.[7] These figures are, however, called into question as being wholly unconvincing.[1][7] Despite the odds, however, the Romans had emerged victorious.[17]

Aftermath
In the immediate aftermath of the battle Sulla erected a trophy which he dedicated to the Roman gods Mars, for delivering victory to Rome, and also to Venus, in the spirit of fortune for the luck granted to the Romans.[17] Archelaeus fled to the island of Euboea and immediately started using the fleet stationed there to harass his opponents naval traffic and sending raids against the Romans and their allies.[18] When Sulla arrived at Thebes he held victory games, during which he may have been made aware of the approach of Lucius Valerius Flaccus who had recently landed in Epirus.[5][17] Flaccus and Sulla met at Melitaea in Thessaly, though neither army made a move, both armies set up camp and waited for the other to attack.[19] No attack came, and after some time Flaccus' soldiers began to desert in favour of Sulla, at first slowly but with time in increasing numbers, eventually Flaccus had to break camp or lose his entire army.[19] Meanwhile, Archelaeus, who had wintered on the Island of Euboea, was reinforced by 80,000 men brought over from Asia Minor by Dorylaeus, another of Mithridates' generals. The Mithridatic army then embarked and sailed to Chalcis from where they marched back into Boeotia.[5][7][19] Both Sulla and Flaccus were aware of these developments, so, rather than waste Roman troops to fight each other, Flaccus took his soldiers and headed for Asia Minor while Sulla turned back to face Archelaus once again.[20] Sulla moved his army a few miles to the east of Chaeronea and into position near Orchomenos, a place he chose for its natural entrenchment.[20] Here, Sulla once more, and once again outnumbered, faced off against Archelaus at the Battle of Orchomenus.[11
Battle of Orchomenus

Casualties and losses
Strength
Commanders and leaders
Belligerents
Battle of Orchomenus
Part of First Mithridatic War
Orchomenos 86aC png.PNG
Date85 BC
LocationOrchomenus, Boeotia (modern Greece)
ResultRoman victory
Roman RepublicPontus
Lucius Cornelius SullaArchelaus
Dorylaeus
30,000[1]75,000–80,000
about 100heavy, suggested some 15,000

The Battle of Orchomenus was fought in 85 BC between Rome and the forces of Mithridates VI of Pontus. The Roman army was led by Lucius Cornelius Sulla, while Mithridates' army was led by Archelaus. The Roman force was victorious, and Archelaus later defected to Rome. The battle ended the Mithridatic invasion of Europe. Information on the battle is included in Plutarch's Life of Sulla, chapters 20–21.

Background
After his victory over Archelaus at Chaeronea, Sulla set out for Thessaly to meet the consul Lucius Valerius Flaccus coming from Italy (although Sulla was unaware he had been sent to attack him, not to join with him). On the way, he heard reports that Dorylaeus had landed at Chalcis with a sizeable fleet transporting eighty thousand of Mithridates' best troops to reinforce Archelaus. Dorylaeus wanted to tempt Sulla to fight as soon as possible, and Sulla cooperated by abruptly turning around to meet this new threat. After a skirmish with Sulla's troops, Dorylaeus began to rethink the idea of giving battle and instead promoted a strategy designed to wear the enemy down. On the other hand, Archelaus' confidence was raised by the flat terrain around their camp at Orchomenus, which favoured their superior cavalry.

Battle
While Archelaus let his men relax after taking their positions, Sulla set his men to work building trenches and ditches which he hoped would cut off Archelaus' cavalry from the plains and move the fighting to more boggy areas. Archelaus recognized Sulla's strategy, and launched several attacks on the soldiers digging the trenches and ditches. Sulla's men began to panic and break for the safety of camp. Sulla saved his army by making his stand on the earthworks and bellowing to his wavering troops:[2] 'Orchomenos! Remember the name. I'm ready to fight and die here. When people ask you where you ran away and left your general, tell them: at Orchomenos!'[3] This caused his troops to rally and repulse the attack. In one of these attacks, Archelaus' stepson, Diogenes, distinguished himself in a valiant attack where he died gloriously.[4]

For his final attack, Archelaus led out his troops in a more formal battle array. Archelaus had his scythed chariots to the front followed by his Macedonian style phalanx, then came his auxiliaries. The cavalry was massed at the flanks, though their effectiveness was limited by Sulla's earthworks. Sulla had his army arranged in three lines, though there were spaces between the files through which light infantry, and even cavalry could rush. His front line was denser than the troops formed up in the back. The reason for this peculiar formation became apparent when the scythed chariots attacked. The Roman front ranks opened up and stepped backwards and revealed serried ranks of stakes driven into the ground at an angle to point outwards. Some chariots were impaled on Sulla's stakes and the rest pelted with pila (the Roman javelin). The surviving chariots were driven back into their phalanx creating chaos among its ranks. Sulla took maximum advantage of the confusion by ordering a general advance. Archelaus tried to save his phalanx by having his cavalry attack the advancing Romans hoping to buy time for his infantry to reform. Sulla had foreseen this move and charged his own vastly outnumbered cavalry to check the Pontic cavalry attack. The Roman cavalry succeeded in stopping the Pontic cavalry charge and were soon joined by the infantry. Cutting through the cavalry, the legionaries closed with the still re-forming phalanx which panicked and ran.[5]

After winning the battle Sulla advanced on the Pontic camp and started to besiege it. The Romans were able to pull down a section of the ramparts; led by a junior officer called Basilus, Roman legionaries poured into the camp. In the close quarters of the enemy camp the Roman legionaries with their short stabbing swords had a distinct advantage. Trapped against the marsh the Pontic soldiers had nowhere to run and were massacred.[6]

Aftermath
Sulla decorated Basilus in appreciation of his courage during the storming of Archelaus' camp. He then went on to punish Boeotia for its treachery; he destroyed three Boeotian towns: Anthedon, Darymna, and Halae.[7] Later, upon meeting fishermen from Halae who gave him fish, Sulla told them he was surprised there were any of them left, but let them go and told them not to worry. As a result of this incident, the people of Halae were inspired to repopulate their town.[8]

While Sulla was away fighting Mithridates, Rome was suffering from civil disorder at the hands of the two consuls of 85 BC, Lucius Cornelius Cinna and Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, prompting eminent members of Roman society to flee to Sulla's camp, including his wife Metella and their children.[9] Sulla tried to use his victory at the Battle of Orchomenus to bring about peace with Mithridates so that he could return home, and though Sulla's peace terms were not immediately accepted, Archelaus eventually managed to broker a peace between Sulla and Mithridates. After Gaius Flavius Fimbria's troops defected to Sulla (originally the troops of Flaccus, who Fimbria had led a revolt against), Fimbria committed suicide and Sulla was able to wrap up his affairs in Greece and Asia Minor, and return to Italy.
Након ових тешких пораза Митридат је морао прстати на мир гдје се одрекао многих освојених простора у Анадолији.
 
Ја сам уопште фасциниран Понтом, тим краљевствима и народима који су тамо обитавали. Јако занимљив и буран регион.

Иначе, име Митридат значи Митри-дат. Дат Митри као дар. То све Срби бре.:maramica:
 
Poslednja izmena:
Након првог Митридатског рата, није се дуго мировало а није се ни поштовало примирје, Луције Лициније Мурена којег је Сула оставио у Анадолији са двије легије кренупо је у поход по Кападокији а убрзо и пљачкати Митридатове посједе. Митридат је обновио моћну и бројну армију, брзо преузео иницијативу, поразио Мурену, повратио посједе и освојио нове територије, посебно у Кападокији.
Услиједили су мировни преговори и Митридат је зарад мира морао вратити неке освојене територије.
Опет се није дуго чекало, краљ Битиније Никомед није имао дјеце и оставља краљевство свом савезнику Риму, Митридат није могао дозволити такву нарушену равнотећу снага у Анадолији и креће у кампању како би поправио и свој положај и проšирио краљевство.

Рим је операције и командовање препустио двојици конзула претходне године, Марку Аурелију Коти, новом управитељу Битиније и Луцију Лицинију Лукулу. Што говори колико су догађаји у Анадолији за њих били од важности, посебно што су угушили побуну у Хиспанији, а још није плануо Спартаков устанак, могли су се фокусирати на Анадолију.

Митридат је на основу искустава првога митридатовога рата обучио велику војску од 120.000 пјешака и 16.000 коњаника да ратује у формацијама римске легије. И опрема бјеше по узору на опрему римске војске.

Нови намјесник Битиније Кота пред напредовањем Митродата повукао се у Халкедон препустивши Битинију понтској војсци, међутим кодј Халкедона понтска флота наноси катастрофу римској флоти, осваја луку и заробљава 60 римских бродова.
Након побједе код Халкедона Митридат наставља кампању и ту почиње кључна опсада Кизика
Siege of Cyzicus

Battle of Cyzicus
Belligerents
Commanders and leaders
Strength
Casualties and losses
Part of Third Mithridatic War
Cyzicus amphitheatre 15.jpg
Ruins of Cyzicus
Date73 BC
LocationCyzicus
ResultRoman victory
The Roman Republic and their ally the city of CyzicusThe Kingdom of Pontus
Lucius Licinius LucullusMithridates VI of Pontus
Appian: 30,000 infantry and 1,600 cavalry[1]
Plutarch: 30,000 infantry and 2,500 cavalry[2]
300,000[3] probably including camp followers
very lowvery high

The siege of Cyzicus took place in 73 BC between the armies of Mithridates VI of Pontus and the Roman-allied citizens of Cyzicus in Mysia and Roman Republican forces under Lucius Licinius Lucullus. It was in fact a siege and a counter-siege. It ended in a decisive Roman victory.[4]

After his defeat at the hands of Lucius Cornelius Sulla during the First Mithridatic War (89-85 BC) Mithridates had rebuilt his power and armies.[5] Then, in 74 BC, Nicomedes IV the king of Bithynia died and the Romans claimed he had left his kingdom to Rome in his will.[6] Bithynia had been a buffer state between Rome and Pontus. Its removal caused Mithridates to march his armies westwards and invade Roman territory.[7]

Prelude
Main article: Battle of Chalcedon (74 BC)

Marcus Aurelius Cotta, the Roman governor of Bithynia, was building up his forces when Mithridates invaded. Cotta, not ready to face Mithridates, retreated to Chalcedon, where he had the fleet to his back, and sent urgent messages to former consular colleague Lucullus, who had secured the command against Mithridates as his proconsular mission. Lucullus was in Asia, training and preparing his army to invade Pontus from the south, but he put his plans on halt and marched towards Bithynia to deal with the invasion. Unfortunately for the Romans, Cotta was drawn into a battle before the walls of Chalcedon and lost 3,000 men. Mithridates followed up this success with a combined land and sea assault in which he captured most of Cotta's fleet. Mithridates left Cotta under siege and marched his main army westward taking city after city until he reached the Roman-allied city of Cyzicus.[8]

The Siege
Cyzicus was located on a peninsula with a very narrow connection to the mainland (like a spearpoint aimed inland). Mithridates had to ship part of his army onto the peninsula to effectively besiege the city. He took the harbour and then started to put up siegeworks. Pontic engineers under the direction of Niconides of Thessaly, Mithridates' chief engineer, began assembling a 150-foot siege tower, battering rams, catapults, and other siege weaponry, including giant crossbows.

The counter-siege
Unfortunately for Mithridates, Cyzicus held out long enough for Lucullus and his army to arrive. Lucullus, unwilling to fight a pitched battle against the numerically superior Mithridatic army, set up camp on a hill overlooking the city. The Romans were astonished by the size of the Mithridatic army, but from experience Lucullus knew the difficulties of keeping an army fed. From interrogating a number of prisoners Lucullus found out the Mithridatic army had only about four days of supplies left. He explained to his officers that the best way to defeat a large army is to stamp on its stomach. He then ordered his men to conduct a counter-siege, they did so and even succeeded in cutting off Mithridates' supply lines while keeping their own open.[9]

Mithridates attempted to convince the Cyzicans that the Roman army was his own reserve, but Lucullus was able to get one of his men into the city and he convinced them otherwise. The messenger had to sneak through the Mithridatic siege lines and then swim seven miles to the city (he did so with the help of a flotation device).[10]

With the onset of winter, Mithridates's forces faced starvation and plague. The plague was brought on by "corpses that were thrown out unburied".[11][12] The army of Lucullus was a constant threat, always nearby and yet never willing to engage in force. With disease and starvation running rampant the king decided it was time to withdraw. Probably making use of the vile winter weather, Mithridates was able to break through Lucullus' stranglehold and marched his army towards Lampsacus.[13]

Aftermath
The Mithridatic army made its way along the coast to the port of Lampsacus. Along the way, they were attacked and destroyed at the Granicus river (the same river where Alexander the Great won his first victory over the Persians). Of the 300,000 who had set out for Bithynia only 20,000 effective troops remained. The siege of Cyzicus could be considered an unmitigated disaster.[14]
Кизик бјеше важан град на Мраморном мору са огромним складиштима за жито. Луције Лициније Лукул је са војском од 30.000 пјешака и 2.000 коњаника стигао до Кизика.
Понтска војска бјеше бројнија, Апијан помиње 300.000 војника, но то је неколико пута преувеличано, Митридат је располагао са неких 50-60.000 војника, дупло више од Римљана.

Лукул, користећи се лукавством извукао је двије легије, око 10.000 легионара, под изговором да хоће да пређу на Митридатову страну, заузимају планину која се налазила иза понтске армије, започињу блокаду и спречавају снабдијевање понтске армије.
Митридат, како му је прекинуто снабдијевање копном, располагао је бројнијом воском, могао је кренути у разбијање блокаде, ту би сада због повољнијег римског положаја који контролишу планину изгубио добар дио војске, још увијек је контролисао море преко којег је могао снабдијевати војску, и одлучио се да ојача опсаду.
Са морске стране блокирао је луку двоструким поморским зидом, а са стране копна изградио је бројне опсадне справе, укључујући и опсадну кулу висине 50 метара са које су дејствовали катапулти.
Извршен је један снажан напад на бедеме, пробило се у град, но одбијени су, а браниоци су поправили порушени зид.
Невоља је задесила понтску војску јер је снажна олуја уништила већину опсадних справа, догађај који је нарушио морал нападача и подигао елан браниоцима који су то приписали натприродним силама.

Митридатови генерали су савјетовали Митридата да одустане од опсаде Кизика, након чега се повлачи на планину Диндим, која је била на супротној страни од планине на којој се утаборио Лукул. Од планине до града је дао да се изгради насип са низом кула. У исто време покушао је да поткопа градске бедеме.
Такво стање се отегло, стигла је зима, отежано бјеше снабдијевање морским путем, због недостатка залиха Митридат шаље коњицу и део пешадије у Битинију. Лукул је сазнао за ову дислокацију војске, са коњицом и 10 кохорти пешадије креће у потјеру, сустиже их и напада на прелазу преко ,ријеке Риндак, наноси им тешке губитке, заробљава 15.000 војника, 6.000 коња и много стоке.

Након побједе са заробљеницима дефилује испред понтског табора и деморалише Митридатову војску. Митридату стижу нове лоше вијести, из Галатије гдје галаћански краљ (и римски савезник) Дејотар побјеђује Митридатовог војсковиђу Еумаха, његови генерали Метрофан и Фаније бивају потиснути и из Мизије. На то се, услијед прекинутог снабдијевања, надовезала глад, све грђе и грђе.
И поред грозне ситуације, деморалисане војске, Митридат је наставио са опсадом, безусјешно, то се убрзо претворило у ноћну мору.

У том кошмару је једини епилог одустајање од опсаде.
Део војске је канио евакуисати морским путем, бродовима, а већи део копном према Лампсаку. Међутим, укрцавање на бродове претворило се у катастрофу, понтску војску ухватила је паника јер су повјероваки да су напуштени, стихијски крећу на бродове, у том метежу и хаосу многи пренапуњени људством бродови су потонули, а браниоци Кизика су ово искористили да крену у јуриш и масакрирају непријатење.
Ништа боље није прошла ни војска која је копном пошла према Ламстаку, успорио их је прелаз преко набујалих ријека Есепа и Граника, бивају нападнути и трпе велике губитке, погинуло је 20.000 понтских војника.

Митридат се са остацима војске некако докопао Лампсака, гдје их је сада Лукул опсједао, али убрзо је одустао. Митридатова камапња по истоку Анадолије претворила се у катастрофу.
Наредних година бјеше наизменичних акција уз сталне дипломатске активности.
Рим је покушао приволити моћног краља Јерменије, Тиграна II, Митридатовог зета и савезника да га изда и да им се придружи, но он је остао вјеран тасту.
6382110fdaded0eff58d65ba86f868bd.jpg

Зато је Лукул повео кампању против Јерменије, окупио је војску од 35.000 пјашака и 10.000 коњаника. Тигран на другој страни бјеше ојачао своју војску са контигентом из Иберије и Албаније, располагао је са 80-100.000 војника. Митридат га је наговорао да никако не прихвати отворену битку, али Тигран уздајући се у бројчану надмоћ није га послушао и дошло је до битке код Тигранокерта 6.октобра 69. године п.н.е.
Battle of Tigranocerta

Battle of Tigranocerta
Belligerents
Commanders and leaders
Strength
Casualties and losses
Part of the Third Mithridatic War
Hpa-tigranakertbattle69.gif
Date6 October 69 BC
LocationTigranocerta, Armenia
ResultRoman victory
19px-Roman_Military_banner.svg.png
Roman Republic
23px-Artaxiad_standard2.svg.png
Kingdom of Armenia
Lucullus
Legatus Fannius
Legatus Sextilius
Legatus Hadrianus
Tigranes the Great
Taxilés
Mancaeus
Mithrobarzanes
11,000–40,000 men
10,000–24,000 infantry
1,000–3,300 Roman and 10,000 Galatian and Thracian cavalry
Bithynian infantry
70,000–100,000 men
Adiabenians, Corduenians, Iberians, Medians
20,000–25,000 Armenians
Unknown, estimated lightUnknown, estimates given from 10,000 to 100,000[1]
5,000 killed
5,000 captured


The Battle of Tigranocerta (Armenian: Տիգրանակերտի ճակատամարտ, Tigranakerti tchakatamart) was fought on 6 October 69 BC between the forces of the Roman Republic and the army of the Kingdom of Armenia led by King Tigranes the Great. The Roman force, led by Consul Lucius Licinius Lucullus, defeated Tigranes, and as a result, captured Tigranes' capital city of Tigranocerta.[2]

The battle arose from the Third Mithridatic War being fought between the Roman Republic and Mithridates VI of Pontus, whose daughter Cleopatra was married to Tigranes. Mithridates fled to seek shelter with his son-in-law, and Rome invaded the Kingdom of Armenia. Having laid siege to Tigranocerta, the Roman forces fell back behind a nearby river when the large Armenian army approached. Feigning retreat, the Romans crossed at a ford and fell on the right flank of the Armenian army. After the Romans defeated the Armenian cataphracts, the balance of Tigranes' army, which was mostly made up of raw levies and peasant troops from his extensive empire, panicked and fled, and the Romans remained in charge of the field.[2]

Siege of Tigranocerta

Tigranes the Great's empire circa 80 BC

Tigranes, who was residing at Tigranocerta in the summer of 69, was not only astonished by the speed of Lucullus' rapid advance into Armenia but by the fact that he had even launched such an operation in the first place. Unable to reconcile with this reality for a certain period of time, he belatedly sent a general named Mithrobarzanes with 2,000-3,000 cavalrymen to slow down Lucullus' advance, but his forces were cut to pieces and routed by the 1,600 cavalry led by Sextilius, one of the legates serving under Lucullus. Learning of Mithrobarzanes' defeat, Tigranes entrusted the defence of his namesake city to Mancaeus and left to recruit a fighting force in the Taurus Mountains.[5] Lucullus' legates were able to disrupt two separate detachments coming to the aid of Tigranes, and even located and engaged the king's forces in a canyon in the Taurus. Lucullus chose not to pursue Tigranes while he had an unimpeded path towards Tigranocerta; he advanced and began to lay siege to it.[6]

Tigranocerta was still an unfinished city when Lucullus laid siege to it in the late summer of 69. The city was heavily fortified and according to the Greek historian Appian, had thick and towering walls that stood 25 meters high, providing a formidable defence against a prolonged siege.[7] The Roman siege engines that were employed at Tigranocerta were effectively repelled by the defenders by the use of naphtha, making Tigranocerta, according to one scholar, the site of "perhaps the world's first use of chemical warfare."[8]

However, since Tigranes had forcibly removed many of its inhabitants from their native lands and brought them to Tigranocerta, their allegiance to the king was cast into doubt. They soon proved their unreliability: when Tigranes and his army appeared on a hill overlooking the city, the inhabitants "greeted his [Lucullus] appearance with shouts and din, and standing on the walls, threateningly pointed out the Armenians to the Romans."[9]

Forces
Appian claims that Lucullus had embarked from Rome with only a single legion; upon entering Anatolia to make war against Mithridates, he added four more legions to his army. The overall size of this force consisted of 30,000 infantry and 1,600 cavalry.[10] Following Mithridates' retreat to Armenia, Appian estimates Lucullus' invading force to be only two legions and 500 horsemen,[11] although it is highly improbable that he would have undertaken the invasion of Armenia with such a small army.[12] Plutarch gave 16,000 heavy infantry and 1,000 cavalry, slingers and archers for the Romans at Tigranocerta. Of these, 6,000 heavy infantry did not participate in the battle.[13] Eutropius put the Roman army at 18,000 men.[14] Historian Adrian Sherwin-White places the size of Lucullus' force at 12,000 seasoned legionaries (composed of three legions), and 4,000 provincial cavalry and light infantry.[15] The Roman army was further bolstered by several thousand allied Gallic, Thracian, and Bithynian infantry and cavalry, giving it a possible strength of 40,000.[2]

Tigranes' army clearly held a numerical superiority over that of Lucullus'.[16] According to Appian, it numbered 250,000 infantry and 50,000 cavalry.[17] According to Plutarch, Lucullus stated in a letter to the senate to have fought 20,000 slingers and archers, 55,000 cavalry, including 17,000 armoured with mail, 150,000 heavy infantry and 35,000 non-combatants for a total of 225,000 soldiers and 35,000 non-combatants.[18] Eutropius went further, claiming 600,000 Armenian cataphracts and 100,000 infantry.[19] Memnon of Heraclea gave a more modest 80,000 infantry and cavalry.[20] Phlegon of Tralles says Tigranes had 70,000 men, including 30,000 cavalry and 40,000 infantry.[21] Many scholars, however, doubt these figures accurately reflect the true number of Tigranes' army and believe they are highly inflated.[12][22] Some historians, most notably Plutarch, wrote that Tigranes considered Lucullus' army far too small, and upon seeing it, is quoted as saying "If they come as ambassadors, they are too many; if they are soldiers, too few,"[23] although some have expressed doubt on the veracity of this quote.[24][25] In 1985, Ruben Manaseryan estimated Tigranes' army at 80,000–100,000 men.[2] Tigranes also possessed several thousand cataphracts, formidable heavily armoured cavalry that were clad in mail armour and armed with lances, spears or bows.[26]

Disposition and engagement

The commander of the Roman Senate army, Lucius Licinius Lucullus.

The two armies converged toward the Batman-Su river slightly to the south-west of Tigranocerta.[27]

Tigranes' army was positioned on the east bank of the river while Lucullus, who had left a rear guard of 6,000 heavy infantry under Murena to continue the siege of the city, met the Armenian army on the river's west bank.[28] The Armenian army was formed of three sections.[12] Two of Tigranes' vassal kings led the left and right flanks, while Tigranes led his cataphracts in the centre. The rest of his army stood in front of a hill, a position Lucullus soon exploited.[citation needed]

Roman troops at first attempted to dissuade Lucullus from engaging in battle, since October 6 marked the day of the disastrous battle of Arausio, where the general Quintus Servilius Caepio and his Roman army were delivered a crushing defeat by the Germanic Cimbri and Teuton tribes. Ignoring his troops' superstitious beliefs, Lucullus is said to have responded, "Verily, I will make this day, too, a lucky one for the Romans."[29]

Cowan and Hook suggest that Lucullus would have deployed the Romans in a simplex acies, that is to say a single line, so making the frontage of the army as wide as possible as a counter to the cavalry.[22] He took several of his troops downriver, where the river was the easiest to ford, and at one point, Tigranes believed that this move meant Lucullus was withdrawing from the battlefield.[30]

Lucullus had initially decided to make a running charge with his infantry, a Roman military tactic that minimized the amount of time an enemy could utilize its archers and sling infantry prior to close combat engagement.[31] However, he decided against this at the last moment when he realized that the Armenian cataphracts posed the greatest threat to his men, ordering instead a diversionary attack with his Gallic and Thracian cavalry against the cataphracts.[citation needed]

With the cataphracts' attention fixed elsewhere, Lucullus formed two cohorts into maniples and then ordered them to ford the river.[32] His objective was to outflank Tigranes' cataphracts by circling counterclockwise around the hill and attacking them from the rear.[33]

Lucullus personally led the charge on foot and upon reaching the top of the hill, he yelled to his soldiers in an effort to buoy their morale: "The day is ours, the day is ours, my fellow soldiers!"[34] With this, he gave special instructions to the cohorts to attack the horses' legs and thighs, since these were the only areas of the cataphracts which were not armoured.[35][36] Lucullus charged downhill with his cohorts and his orders soon proved decisive: the lumbering cataphracts were caught by surprise and, in their attempts to break free from their attackers, careered into the ranks of their own men as the lines began to collapse.[11][37]

The infantry, which was also made up of many non-Armenians, began to break ranks and confusion spread to the rest of the body of Tigranes' army. While the great king himself took to flight with his baggage train northwards, the entire line of his army gave way.[citation needed]

Aftermath and legacy
With no army left to defend Tigranocerta, and a foreign populace that gleefully opened the gates to the Romans, Lucullus' army began the wholesale looting and plunder of the city.[38] The city was burned. The king's treasury, estimated to be worth 8,000 talents,[39] was looted and each soldier in the army was awarded 800 drachma. The battle also resulted in severe territorial losses: most of the lands in Tigranes' empire to the south of the Taurus fell under the sway of Rome.[citation needed]

Despite the heavy losses Tigranes suffered, the battle did not end the war. In retreating northwards, Tigranes and Mithridates were able to elude Lucullus' forces, though losing again against the Romans during the battle of Artashat.[40] In 68, Lucullus' forces began to mutiny, longing to return home, and he withdrew them from Armenia the following year.[41]

The battle is highlighted by many historians specifically because Lucullus overcame the numerical odds facing his army.[12] The Italian philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli remarked upon the battle in his book, The Art of War, where he criticised Tigranes' heavy reliance on his cavalry over his infantry.[42]

Casualties
The casualties reported for Tigranes' army are immense, with estimates given from 10,000 to as many as 100,000 men.[36] Phlegon counted 5,000 dead and 5,000 captured.[43] Orosius gave 30,000 losses, while Plutarch upped them to 100,000 infantry slain and the entire cavalry force wiped out save for a handful.[44][45]

Plutarch says that on the Roman side, "only a hundred were wounded, and only five killed,"[46] although such low figures are highly unrealistic.[47] Cowan and Hook, while considering these losses ridiculous, think it is clear that the battle was won with disproportionate losses.[48]
Битку је одлучила недисциплина јерменске војске и Лукулово умијеће. Формирао је двије хохорте, извршио форсање ријеке, заобишао јерменску војску и са леђа ударио на десно крило. Јуриш је лично предводио Лукул, код противника је завладала паника што се убрзо претворило у катастрофу за јерменску војску.

Лукул је имао успјешну кампању по Јерменији, но у Понту је Митридат са опорављеним снагама нанио поразе ослабљеном римском контигенту. Након пораза, малобројнији, јавља се све веће незадовољство, Лукул бива све више омражен, убрзо и повучен, замјењује га Гнеј Помпеј, који ће како сам примијетио у уводном посту, водити изузетно успјешну кампању по Анадолији и Кавказу.

Митридат се повлачи на Крим, покушао је формирати опет саvез и кренути у нови поход против Рима, но бива издан од свих и завршава свој пут,
Mithridates-VI-120–63-BC-King-of-Pontus-and-Armenia-Minor.jpg
 
Citat o kome je reč:

Tihin stub, koji se nalazi u Bizantu, podigao je Pompej Veliki, jer tu je, zaustavljajući Gote zajedno sa Mitridatom, razbio ih i zauzeo Bizant. I natpis, latinskim slovima na podnožju stuba, sa sledećim rečima, Tihi koja dovodi kući bezbedno, svedočeći njegovu pobedu nad Gotima. Kasnije, međutim, mesto je postala krčma. Goti su Geti.

Kako je došlo do povezivanja tog stuba sa Pompejem...e pa, to treba istražiti. Vidim da neki hipotetišu o mogućnosti veza sa istoimenim Anastasijevim nećakom? 🤔 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeius_(consul_501) On je porazio Gote 515. godine naše ere.

Ovde je vrlo interesantan i Kroukov rad Poezija i propaganda: Anasasije I kao Pompej: https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/991/1071

Krouk predlaže da je moguće da je postojao neki izvorni spomenik koji je bio podignut 62. ili 61. godine pre naše ere, posvećen Pompejevoj blokadi Vizanta i isterivanju Mitridata odatle, a onda da je novo postolje (obnova) i novi natpis uključio novi kontekst.

:think:
 
Citat o kome je reč:

Tihin stub, koji se nalazi u Bizantu, podigao je Pompej Veliki, jer tu je, zaustavljajući Gote zajedno sa Mitridatom, razbio ih i zauzeo Bizant. I natpis, latinskim slovima na podnožju stuba, sa sledećim rečima, Tihi koja dovodi kući bezbedno, svedočeći njegovu pobedu nad Gotima. Kasnije, međutim, mesto je postala krčma. Goti su Geti.

Kako je došlo do povezivanja tog stuba sa Pompejem...e pa, to treba istražiti. Vidim da neki hipotetišu o mogućnosti veza sa istoimenim Anastasijevim nećakom? 🤔 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompeius_(consul_501) On je porazio Gote 515. godine naše ere.

Ovde je vrlo interesantan i Kroukov rad Poezija i propaganda: Anasasije I kao Pompej: https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/viewFile/991/1071

Krouk predlaže da je moguće da je postojao neki izvorni spomenik koji je bio podignut 62. ili 61. godine pre naše ere, posvećen Pompejevoj blokadi Vizanta i isterivanju Mitridata odatle, a onda da je novo postolje (obnova) i novi natpis uključio novi kontekst.

:think:

Originalni citat iz De Mensibus Jovana Liđanina:

Ὅτι τὴν ἱσταμένην ἐν τῷ Βυζαντίῳ στήλην τῆς Τύχης Πομπήϊος ὁ Μέγας ἔστησεν· ἐνταῦθα <γὰρ> τὸν Μιθριδάτην συγκλείσας μετὰ τῶν Γότθων καὶ τούτους διασκεδάσας τὸ Βυζάντιον εἷλε. καὶ μαρτυρεῖ τὸ ἐπὶ τῆς σπείρας τοῦ κίονος ἐπίγραμμα Λατίνοις γράμμασιν, ὃ δηλοῖ τάδε·
Τῇ τύχῃ τῇ ἐπανασωστικῇ διὰ τοὺς νικηθέντας Γότθους.

ὁ δὲ τόπος ὕστερον καπηλεῖον ἐγένετο. οἱ Γότθοι Γέται.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/H/Roman/Texts/Lydus/4/September*.html
 
U okvirima istog rata, Marko Terentije Varon Lukul ratovao je protiv Mitridatovih saveznika u istočnoj Trakiji. Tu je porazio i Gete 72. godine pre nove ere.

To je dok je Lukul još ratovao; pre dolaska Pompeja. Kad se Mitridat VI beše povukao u Jermeniju kod Tigrana.

Mislim da se ovde možda naziru obrisi ključa iza „Gota” Jovana Lidijskog. :think:
 

Ne znam za druge forumaše, ali meni ovo (te prilično brojne i konzistentne ogrebotine) baš izgleda kao primer struganja.

Kao da je originalni natpis bio uklonjen i zamenjen novim.

:think:

IZMENA: O, da, nije samo do mene! :)

content


Dakle, do vremena Jovana Lidijskog (VI st. naše ere) Gotski stub je pretrpeo neke izmene. Originalni natpis je bio sastrugan i novi na njega uklesan.
 
Poslednja izmena:
Kasnije, međutim, mesto je postala krčma. Goti su Geti.
ὁ δὲ τόπος ὕστερον καπηλεῖον ἐγένετο. οἱ Γότθοι Γέται.
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/H/Roman/Texts/Lydus/4/September*.html
Да, и приређивач поменуте странице даје примједбу да се под појмом Готи мисли на Гете.
Јован Лидијски попут Јорданеса у Гетици (имамо овдје вријеме Митридатовоих ратова када гетског краља Буребисту назива готским краљем, а Гете Готима);
Jordanes 069.jpg

поистовјећује Готе и Гете и изгледа да је то убјеђење било присутно код неких римских писаца у VI вијеку, заправо и прије њих Павле Орозије који је битисао на прелазу из IV у V вијек такође поистовјећује Готе и Гете (Дачане).
U okvirima istog rata, Marko Terentije Varon Lukul ratovao je protiv Mitridatovih saveznika u istočnoj Trakiji. Tu je porazio i Gete 72. godine pre nove ere.
To je dok je Lukul još ratovao; pre dolaska Pompeja. Kad se Mitridat VI beše povukao u Jermeniju kod Tigrana.
Mislim da se ovde možda naziru obrisi ključa iza „Gota” Jovana Lidijskog.
Могуће да је то разлог.
За разлику од Гета и Беса који су у том времену ратовали против Рима на простору Тракије и тадашње Дакије, самим тим били природни савезници Митридата (који је и имао намјеру удружити снаге са гетским краљем Буребистом и у походу уз Дунав и Саву извршити инвазију на Рим, но смрт га је спречила, иако је тај план био преамбициозан наравно), у Анадолији, значи простор града Византа и околине који се тада налазио у саставу Битиније, трачки народи, Фригијци и Битињани су били савезници Рима и у тим ратовима ратовали против Митридата.
Ни Касије Дион ни Апијан који је опширно писао о Митридатским ратовима (овдје) не помињу ти неку кампању, посебно не неку коју је водио Помпеј, након које је освојен или ослобођен град Визант. Осим ако то не подведемо и ширу кампању након опсаде Кизика који се налази нешто западније, но и ту Помпеј није имао учешћа.
Нити помињу да су Римљани ратовали против Трачана (Битињана или Фригијаца који су како написах били савезници Рима), па да то некако повежемо са појмом Гети који би био уопштен за све Трачане.
Истина, у 9.поглављу 36.књиге (овдје) Касије Дион пише да су Трачани у Анадолији иако савезници Рима знали мијењати страну и ратовати на страни Митридата, но опет немамо навода које би могли довести у везу са наводним заузимање Византа (?) од стране Помпеја Великог, због чега би му у славу посветили стуб.
Како год, овдје је код закључака пожељан опрез, не треба одбацити могућност да је натпис на стубу уклесан много послије времена Помпеја Великог.
 

Back
Top