Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:03:46.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lesser Armenia and Galatia after Pompey's Settlement of the East

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

F. E. Adcock
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

No complete account of Pompey's settlement of Asia Minor has been preserved. The text of Cassius Dio is missing, and Xiphilinus supplies no more than a general phrase. Appian, after mentioning the foundation of Nicopolis in Lesser Armenia, describes the recognition of Ariobarzanes as king of Cappadocia with the accession of Sophene and Gordyene, of Castabala and certain other cities in Cilicia. These events he assigns to a time before Pompey's Syrian expedition. In a later passage, in which Pompey's achievements and arrangements are summed up, he speaks of the assignment of Armenia (Major) to Tigranes, Bosporus to Pharnaces, Cappadocia and the other places described before to Ariobarzanes. Seleuceia and other territory in Mesopotamia are given to Antiochus of Commagene. He continues: ἐποίει δὲ ϰαὶ τετράρχας, Γαλλογραιϰῶν μέν, οἳ νῦν εἰσὶ Γαλάται Καππαδόϰαις ὅμοροι, Δηιόταρον ϰαὶ ἑτέρους, Παϕλαγονίας δὲ Ἄτταλον ϰαὶ Κόλχων Ἀρίσταρχον δυνάστην. Then after referring to the appointment of Archelaus as priest-king in Comana and of the recognition as amicus populi Romani of Castor of Phanagoreia he adds: πολλὴν δὲ ϰαὶ ἑτέροις χώραν τε ϰαὶ χρήματα ἔδωϰεν.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 1: Papers Presented to Sir Henry Stuart Jones , 1937 , pp. 12 - 17
Copyright
Copyright ©F. E. Adcock 1937. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cassius Dio xxxviii, 7a, Boissevain; ibid, xxxvii, 20 adds nothing.

2 Mithr. 105.

3 Ibid. 114.

4 vi, 14.

5 On this see e.g. Fabricius, W., Theophanes von Mitylene, etc., Strassburg Diss. 1888Google Scholar; Jacoby, F. in FGH iv, 614 f.Google Scholar; R. Laqueur in P-W s.v. ‘Theophanes.’

6 xii, 547.

7 The statements of Appian and Eutropius cited above are confirmed by Aristarchus' coins; see Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, 400, n. 3.

8 To include Lesser Armenia in the territories assigned to Deiotarus it would be necessary to emend the text to καὶ τὴν μικρὰν Ἀρμενίαν.

9 E.g. Fabricius, op. cit. p. 208 f. F. Stähelin, Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater, 89.

10 Bell. Alex. 34, 35, 67.

11 ii, 37, 79.

12 37, 94.

13 See e.g. Appian, , Bell. Civ. ii, 8, 31 ffGoogle Scholar.

14 Cassius Dio xxxviii, 7, 5 τὰ πραχθέντα (so Xyl., προσταχθέντα L.) ὑπὸ τοῦ Πομπηίου πάντα, μήτε τοῦ Λουκούλλου μήτ᾿ ἄλλου τινός ἀντιστάντος ἐβεβαίωσε (cf. Appian, , Bell. Civ. ii, 13, 46Google Scholar, τὰ Πομπηίῳ πεπραγμένα ἅπαντα ἐκύρου. Plutarch, Pomp. 48; ἐκυρώθησαν οὖν Πομπηίῳ μὲν αἱ διατάξεις ὑπὲρ ὧν Λούκουλλος ἤριζε. Vell. Pat. ii, 44, 2. Cicero, , in Vatinium 12, 29Google Scholar). That the ratification was not by a law proposed by Caesar but by a plebiscitum proposed by Vatinius is made probable by L. G. Pocock, A Commentary on Cicero in Vatinium, 169 ff. See also DrCary, M. in CAH, ix, 518Google Scholar.

15 Still less would it apply to a reversal of part of his settlement such as would have been the seizure of Armenia Minor by Deiotarus in the interval between Pompey's departure from Asia Minor and the Lex Vatinia. The suggestion of Stähelin, op. cit. p. 89, seems therefore unacceptable.

16 DrCary, in CAH ix, 393Google Scholar, n. 2, shows himself aware of this difficulty, but suggests that the Senate acted in concurrence with Pompey, i.e. at the time of the settlement, and would not press the statement of Strabo so as to exclude this possibility. I find it difficult to accept this conclusion.

17 67.

18 Revue belge de numismatique, 85th year, 1933, 11 ff. I owe this and the following reference to Mr. J. Allan.

19 Revue belge de numismatique, 86th year, 1934, 5 ff.

20 Cicero, , de bar. responso 13, 29Google Scholar; see Stähelin, op. cit. p. 89, n. 7.

21 He may indeed have already been in effective possession of the region. For Mithridates had made away with most of the lesser Galatian chiefs, and the Galatian nature abhorred a vacuum.

22 xii, 567.

23 See Anderson, J. G. C., Studia Pontica i, 27 ff.Google Scholar; and the literature cited by W. Ruge in P-W s.v. ‘Mithridatium.’

24 Strabo xii, 568. Gorbeus lay on the road from Ancyra to Mazaca. (Itin. Ant. p. 143, 205; Itin. Hieros. 575).

25 Bell. Civ. iii, 4, 5.

26 See Fabricius, op. cit. p. 94; Judeich, W., Caesar im Orient, 152Google Scholar.

27 xii; 567; Appian, Syr. 50. See Niese, in Rb. Mus. xxxviii, 1883, 584Google Scholar: SirRamsay, W. M., Historical Commentary on, St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, 100Google Scholar.

28 Op. cit. p. 209.

29 Fabricius, loc. cit. It may be observed that this does not follow from Strabo xii, 555, a passage which is concerned with the succession of rulers of the whole country.

30 Stähelin (op. cit., p. 89), consistently with the view he adopts, deduces from Steph. Byz. s.v. ‘Σίντοιον’ that Deiotarus built that fortress to secure his hold on Lesser Armenia. What Stephanus says is Σίντοιον, ϕρούριον Ἀρμενίας, κτίσμα Γαλατῶν, words which may apply as well to Brogitarus as to Deiotarus.

31 OGIS 347.

32 Haussoullier, B., Études sur l'histoire ie Milet et du Didymeion, p. 210, no. 10, ll. 35 ffGoogle Scholar.

33 One specimen of his coinage alone survives. It is a tetradrachm in the Cabinet des Medailles and is described by Mionnet, iv, 405, Suppl. vii, Pl. xiii, 3; de Luynes, Revue numismatique, 1845, 264; Th. Reinach, ibid. 1891, 385. The Duc de Luynes read the letter in the exergue as Π and connected it with Pessinus. It is clear that it should be read ⊏ as M. Reinach pointed out. Pessinus cannot have been the mint of Brogitarus or of any other Galatian tetrarch. The coin bears a monogram which Reinach, rightly it seems, read as TAϒ for Tavium. (M. Jean Babelon has very kindly sent me a cast of the coin.) A second monogram appears to describe Tavium as metropolis or, if a suggestion made to me by Prof. J. Keil may be accepted, as μητρόπολις Τρόκμων.

34 Cicero, , de domo sua, 50, 129Google Scholar; de har. responso, 13, 28–9, cf. 27, 59; pro Sestio, 26, 56. The anecdote in Plutarch Cato Minor, 15, if historical, belongs to the year 64 B.C., and cannot be adduced as evidence.

35 ad QF ii, 7, 2.

36 This cannot refer to an absorption of the territory of Domnilaus that is later than Pharsalus; Judeich, op. cit. p. 152, who also suggests that these words refer to the annexation of the country of the Trocmi on the death of Brogitarus.

37 Cassius Dio xli, 63, 3; xlii, 48, 3. See on this Judeich, op. cit. p. 155.