LE SYMPOSIUM INTERNATIONAL LE LIVRE. LA ROUMANIE. L ...

378 criStian eMilian GhiŢĂ
not since the days of the Median Wars had Asia sent such a vast force to
invade Greece.
the question is, though – did Archelaos’ army truly fit the description
offered by the Greek writers? Was this pontic general a latter-day
Mardonios? And was his master a new, tyrannical and hybris-imbued
xerxes?
It is these questions that the present paper will try to address, while
considering the aspect and actions of the pontic infantry, as described in the
accounts of the Battle of Chaeronea, a battle chosen specifically because
the richness of details offered by the ancient authors would allow us as
many glimpses into the workings of this intriguing machine that was the
pontic Army during the age of Mithradates VI eupator, whose complexity
was given not only by the different types of soldiers used, but also by its
ability to integrate different ethnicities, among which the thracians, from
both South and north of the Danube, were an important element.
2. Narrative framework
Before dealing in more detail with the different segments of the
infantry, their role and their origin, it would probably be useful to put the
battle of Chaeronea within its historical context and describe its general
development, in order to clarify their interaction.
the relations between rome and the kingdom of pontus had not always
been inimical. Immediately after losing his war against eumenes, the king
of pergamum and rome’s protégé in the area, the pontic king pharnakes
I concluded a peace treaty, in the year 179, 3 a point which also marks the
beginning of closer relations with rome. thus, in his treaty with the city of
Chersonesos, pharnakes is careful to mention the friendship that connected
both him and the Chersonesitans to rome. 4 his successors, Mithradates IV
and Mithradates V, upheld the roman amicitia, and provided help to the
republic whenever required. 5 It was this cordial relation that Mithradates
χιτώνων ἀναμεμιγμέναι χαλκῷ καὶ σιδήρῳ λάμποντι πυροειδῆ καὶ φοβερὰν ἐν τῷ
σαλεύεσθαι καὶ διαφέρεσθαι προσέβαλον ὄψιν”, Plutarch, Sulla (henceforth, plut.,
Sull.), 16.2-3.
3 the text of the treaty is recorded in polybios, Historiai (henceforth pol.), 25.2. All
dates in the text are BC, unless otherwise stated.
4 IosPE I 2 , 402. 4-6: “[τάν τε ποτὶ Ῥω]μ̣αίους φιλίαν διαφυλά[σ|σοντος καὶ μηδὲ]
ν ἐναντίον αὐτοῖς πράσ|[σοντος]”. The date of the inscription has been convincingly
demonstrated by a number of scholars to be dated according to the Seleukid era, placing it
in 155 BC. Cf. højte, 2004.
5 Mithradates V, for example, helps the romans both against the Carthaginians