Mithridates "the Great"?

[Spartan19]

I just finnished the book, "The Last King" by Micheal Curtis Ford, about Mithridates. It was fiction, but M.C.F's other books seem to be very close to history for being fiction, so you would think that one would be too.Id never head of Mithridates, but I read the book and did some googles on him, and I have to ask, was he really that great? From what it sounds like, he won 2 littl battles againt the Romans, and was decemated in all the other battles, losing 10s of thousands while outnumbering Romes forces 30 or 50 to 1. It states how he conquered Roman cities or Provinces near and around Pontus, but it seemed like they were too small and out of the way for Rome to really care about, esp with the Civil War going on. Rome put him on the run almost the whole time he was in power, having to flee Pontus. His greatest achiviement I know of was besieging Athens, just to be totally destroyed by Sulla at Chareonea. The book and websites Ive seen compare him to Hannibal, and that just seems absurd. Was he really that great?

[Guest Scanderbeg]

I personally don't see what the "great" thing about him is. Not to mention he was around duirng a time of turmoil in Rome. Its Sulla that should be getting the title "The Great" for what he did at Chaeronea. Its too bad that his image was stained later on by Caesar lovers taking power.

[Guest xtreme]

As stated in the book, greatness isn't always measured in terms of battles won and victories procured, but perhaps it is weighed by the terrible fear that is driven into one's enemies or perhaps the shouts of praise and rejoicing heard when the news of death reaches the enemies' ears.

[MARCELLVS]

I agree with xtreme. see joseph conrad's novel: 'heart of darkness'

[Hamilcar Barca]

The only thing great about Mithridates was the fact that he stayed in power for as long as he did.. Mithridates was increadibly lazy, he didn't even attend the epic battles fought against Rome, at both Chaeronea and Orchenomus he was absent, sitting at his throne back in Pontus. It was his general Archalus who fought these battles for him - and lost them - badly.

[Zeke]

lol......Mitaradies is it true that he could speak 25 different launguages? And name every man in his army?? I heard he had a very very good memory.

 

Zeke

[Hamilcar Barca]

If Mithdridates could name all the men in his 110,000+ man armies than I'd take my hat off too him.

[Zeke]

yeah thats what so strange about it..legend says he could speak to every single man in his army and play back his life eaisly because he had the best memory.

 

Zeke

[Legate of XVPrimigenia]

Well even raising that many men against Rome is an accomlishable feat especially with great crushing defeats oif other rebellions close at hand

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

Just remember that the "the Great" at the end of most of those Eastern potentates was self proclaimed. How many of those Eastern kings called themselves the "king of kings"? Too many! Even Pompeius calling himself Magnus was presumptuous and much too early in his career. I can't bring myself to give credit to many of the Eastern kings. Too many of them ruled through nothing more than abject fear. As long as they could keep from getting killed by a member fo the family, there really wasn't much to stop them. Even though Ceasar ruled as a dictator for life towards the end, at least he had to get there through hard work and true skill.

[marcus brutus]

I just finnished the book, "The Last King" by Micheal Curtis Ford, about Mithridates. It was fiction, but M.C.F's other books seem to be very close to history for being fiction, so you would think that one would be too.Id never head of Mithridates, but I read the book and did some googles on him, and I have to ask, was he really that great? From what it sounds like, he won 2 littl battles againt the Romans, and was decemated in all the other battles, losing 10s of thousands while outnumbering Romes forces 30 or 50 to 1. It states how he conquered Roman cities or Provinces near and around Pontus, but it seemed like they were too small and out of the way for Rome to really care about, esp with the Civil War going on. Rome put him on the run almost the whole time he was in power, having to flee Pontus. His greatest achiviement I know of was besieging Athens, just to be totally destroyed by Sulla at Chareonea. The book and websites Ive seen compare him to Hannibal, and that just seems absurd. Was he really that great?

mithadates was a greek king deafeted by sulla, but sulla let him live BIG mistake years later he started a rebelion and destroyed a lot of citys but his second in command was killed by ceaser

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

Unfortunatly, Sulla had to cut short his war in the East because he had to return to Rome in order to deal with internal problems. If Marius and his Popular pary hadn't started all the trouble in Rome, I would think that someone as ruthless and effective as Sulla would have finished off Mithridates before leaving. Sulla doesn't strike me as one that leaves tasks unfinished.

[Spartan19]

I just finnished the book, "The Last King" by Micheal Curtis Ford, about Mithridates. It was fiction, but M.C.F's other books seem to be very close to history for being fiction, so you would think that one would be too.Id never head of Mithridates, but I read the book and did some googles on him, and I have to ask, was he really that great? From what it sounds like, he won 2 littl battles againt the Romans, and was decemated in all the other battles, losing 10s of thousands while outnumbering Romes forces 30 or 50 to 1. It states how he conquered Roman cities or Provinces near and around Pontus, but it seemed like they were too small and out of the way for Rome to really care about, esp with the Civil War going on. Rome put him on the run almost the whole time he was in power, having to flee Pontus. His greatest achiviement I know of was besieging Athens, just to be totally destroyed by Sulla at Chareonea. The book and websites Ive seen compare him to Hannibal, and that just seems absurd. Was he really that great?

mithadates was a greek king deafeted by sulla, but sulla let him live BIG mistake years later he started a rebelion and destroyed a lot of citys but his second in command was killed by ceaser

14149[/snapback]

 

 

No offense, as I like the Emperor series too, but dont use them as your guides. He was not killed by Ceasar, in any way shape or form.

 

Ceasar did in fact beat his son, and coined the phrase afterward of, "I came, I saw, I conquered."

[Spartan19]

Just remember that the "the Great" at the end of most of those Eastern potentates was self proclaimed.  How many of those Eastern kings called themselves the "king of kings"?  Too many!  Even Pompeius calling himself Magnus was presumptuous and much too early in his career.  I can't bring myself to give credit to many of the Eastern kings.  Too many of them ruled through nothing more than abject fear.  As long as they could keep from getting killed by a member fo the family, there really wasn't much to stop them.  Even though Ceasar ruled as a dictator for life towards the end, at least he had to get there through hard work and true skill.

14044[/snapback]

 

 

 

Haha, dont get me started. I have been called racist for my thoughts on the so called Ancient Eastern "military", or lack there of.

[Spartan JKM]

Archelaus, a Cappadocian, was decisively defeated by Sulla twice, as Hamilcar Barca stated, but he did subjugate Bithynia and much of Greece during the 1st Mithridatic War. When commissioned by Mithridates do negotiate peace with Rome, he turned coat and aided Lucius Licinius Lucullus in the 3rd Mithridatic War, which lasted from 73-71 B.C. Lucullus had Pontus under Roman rule by 70 B.C.

 

Mithridates VI 'the Great' (Eupator Dionysius) of Pontus was probably Rome's most dangerous enemy in the last century B.C. Exploiting Rome's vulnerability during the Social War (91-87 B.C.), he took over Cappadocia and Bithynia, and shortly afterwards overwhelmed the army of Manius Aquillius. He was admonished by Sulla to stay in Pontus, and to be 'Friend and Ally of Rome'. He responded by repelling Roman forces (he may have been provoked), precipitating the 2nd Mithridatic War, which he won after consolidating his hold on Pontus and territories to the north. He enlisted the aid of pirates in the Black Sea. It was during the 3rd War he collaborated with Quintus Sertorius, the redoubtable Sabine knight of Iberia. But Mithridates suffered from handicaps, of which a couple were of his own bad doing: he was reputedly too cruel, even for the standards of his time, to gain the unwavering support necessary to defeat, or even check, Rome. He was indeed passionate in his opposition to the Romans, thinking himself a liberator of Rome's Greek subjects, calling himself 'the Deliverer'. Pompey vanquished him in 66 B.C. at Dastira (later Nicopolis in NW Greece). He had himself killed by a slave 3 years later, as he couldn't dispatch himself poison; he was too injured form constant consumptions of antidotes. He was reputedly trying to enable his body impervious to poison - or something like that.

 

Mithridatism would come to be known as the practice of taking increasing sub-lethal doses of the poison until one was able to tolerate lethal doses. Both the literary scholars Albert Housman and Jorge Luis Borges alluded to Mithridates in their poetry works.

 

He may have been one of the many powerful classical figures who suffered from 'Alexander envy'. He spoke maybe 20 languages, and was a leader of mercurial talent, but his military ability was moderate at best. He set himself a goal that was not only beyond his ability, but beyond his resources.

 

He was certainly a prominent figure in Roman history, but if he had never been given the appellation 'the Great', I would have never wondered why.

 

Thanks, Spartan JKM