THE EARLY REIGN OF MITHRADATES II THE GREAT IN PARTHIA

Mithridates VI Eupator and Iran

Having gained control of almost the entire circuit of the Black Sea, Mithridates Eupator spent the last thirty years of his life engaged in a bitter struggle with Rome. In the meantime, the Parthians under Mithridates II turned their attention to the situation in Anatolia. Roman expansion was a danger for the Arsakid domination in Transcaucasia, Mesopotamia and northern Syria. If Parthia viewed herself as the genuine successor of the Seleukid Empire, she had a rightful claim to the countries in Asia south of the Tauros range, i.e. to Kommagene, Kilikia Pedias, and Syria. It seems that the Parthian king treated Mithridates Eupator as a natural ally in a position to counter the Roman expansion in Anatolia. In 95 BC a new political constellation, initiated by Arsakid Iran, and embracing Pontos, Armenia and Parthia, emerged in Asia, and the anti-Roman actions of the Pontic and Armenian kings were intensified. All the activities of Tigranes in the 90’s and early 80’s BC show that he was at that time a Parthian nominee and a Parthian political agent. Through Tigranes’ support for Pontos, the Parthians tried indirectly to counter the Roman advances in Anatolia and the planned Armenian operations in Kappadokia were against Rome’s interests. Only from about 80 BC, when Parthia faced internal struggles, did Tigranes become independent. He took part in the internal Parthian conflicts strengthening his position at the expense of the Arsakids. It was decisive support from the Parthians that prompted Mithridates Eupator to wage an open war on Rome in 89 BC. Politically and militarily the prospects for Pontos were good. Later, events took a turn for the worse, both in Pontos, and in Parthia. The civil war in Parthia, in which Tigranes was involved, annihilated the previous political constellation of the 90’s and early 80’s, in which Pontos, Armenia, and Parthia constituted a strong and very dangerous alliance for Rome. The power of Pontos collapsed for several reasons, but an essential factor was that Mithridates Eupator was deprived of Parthian assistance in the 70’s and 60’s BC, and had to rely on his own and to some extent on Tigranes’ resources. Mithridates Eupator, aware of Arsakid power, tried to renew the old alliance with Parthia but the new Parthian rulers, Sinatrukes and Phraates III, were far more passive in their western policy than Mithridates II. Until the wars between Rome and Parthia under Orodes (57-38 BC), the Parthian strategic perspective did not reach beyond the Euphrates. When in the winter of 69/68 BC Mithridates Eupator and Tigranes approached the Parthians with a view to an alliance, it was too late to stay the course of events and bring Roman military advances in Anatolia to a standstill. The Romans were able to secure their position in Anatolia and in Syria without Parthian countermeasures. Later they tried to crush and subjugate Parthia, but this proved impossible for Rome.

Organizing the Parthian Empire ( English )

After the death of Artabanus I, the situation in Parthia ‎was not encouraging, there were uprising in the west and ‎nomads threatening from the east. Mithradates proved to ‎be a very capable monarch; he managed to bring peace ‎and order to the Empire which earned him the title ‎‎“Great‎".

Kingship between East and West in Mithridates Eupator, SUBARTU 6, 2017, 467-474

The kingdom which Mithridates VI Eupator Dionysos inherited in c. 121/120 BC -and greatly increased before the First Mithridatic War -was a complex country, located on the eastern half of the southern shores of the Black Sea, at the threshold of the Near East. Thus, from the very beginning of his kingship, and during the troubled phases of the long-lasting war with Rome, Mithridates had to deal with many Greek poleis, inside and outside his kingdom, and with strong Iranian elements. He had also to maintain good relationships with Rome -his father Mithridates Evergetes was an ally of Rome during the Third Punic War -and with pro-roman Greek cities, and at the same time he could strengthen ties with the waning Seleucid power, and the newrising Arsacid kingdom. In such a complex scenario, it is of great interest to analyse the paths of self-representation Mithridates elaborated: to convey effective messages, and to support his charismatic figure, he drew a complex self-portrait, in which the great figure of Alexander the Great played a major role. However, his 'Greek' face was not the only one he showed: Iranian and Seleucid elements were equally strong, but often interconnected with the 'Greek' ones, in a composite portrait which perfectly fits with a King -and a kingdom -between East and West.

Catalogue of the Parthian coins: Mithradates I, 171-132 B.C.(English)

Justin states, Mithradates of Parthia and Eucratides of Bactria rose to power almost simultaneously, and Eucratides started a war with rival Demetrius and continued his expansion to India. This provided a good opportunity for Mithradates to invade Bactria and to capture the two satrapies Aspiones and Tourioua.

Mithridates VI Eupator and Persian Kingship

Ancient History Bulletin, 2019

Mithridates VI Eupator is often regarded as a thoroughly Hellenized ruler, especially during his wars with Rome, when he made every effort to gain Greek supporters. While some scholars have discussed Persian aspects of the king’s ideology, there has been little attempt to understand the relationship between Mithridates’ Hellenism and his Persianism. This paper argues that Mithridates aimed to refashion Hellenistic kingship, which had thus far failed at curbing Rome’s eastward expansion, by openly incorporating elements of Persian kingship alongside more traditional Hellenistic methods of rule. Through this, he hoped to fashion himself as a new kind of dynast who would serve as the protector of all residents of the east – Greek and non-Greek – against the threat of Rome.