We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 January 2010
This article argues against the traditional dating of the attack of Prusias I of Bithynia on Heraclea Pontica to the 190s, that is to the time before the Apamean settlement (188). The following re-examination of the only surviving literary source to refer directly to this event (Photius’ excerpts of the history of Heraclea Pontica by Memnon), together with relevant information from several other literary and inscriptional texts, allows us to connect the attack of Prusias with the war between the Bithynian and Pergamene kingdoms, which would then be dated to c. 184–183. The other major conclusion presented is that this war had no direct relation to the outcome of the Apamean settlement, as has been the majority opinion.
1 E. Meyer, Geschichte des Koenigreichs Pontos (Leipzig 1879) 5 n.2 (‘between 200 and 195’).
2 And this is how this phrase has been has been traditionally understood: e.g. G. Vitucci, Il regno di Bitinia (Rome 1953) 51; Janke, M., Historische Untersuchungen zu Memnon von Herakleia (Diss. Würzburg 1963) 32.Google Scholar Further such references: Meyer (n.1) 51; Hopp, J., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der letzten Attaliden (Munich 1977) 41Google Scholar n.33; Bittner, A., Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft in Herakleia Pontike (Bonn 1998) 85.Google Scholar
3 Staehelin, F., Geschichte der Kleinasiatischen Galater bis zur Errichtung der römischen Provinz Asia (Diss. Basel 1897) 60 (with n.1) and 61Google Scholar; Brandis, C.G., ‘Bithynia’, RE 3.518 (with reference to ‘Memnon 27’)Google Scholar; Meyer, E., Die Grenzen der hellenistischen Staaten in Kleinasien (Leipzig 1925) 114 (with n.1) and 115Google Scholar; Vitucci (n.2) 51–2; Habicht, C., ‘Prusias I.’, RE 23.1096.Google Scholar
4 E.g. Hansen, E.V., The Attalids of Pergamon (2nd edn, Ithaca and London 1971) 88Google Scholar; Gruen, E.S., The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1984) 736Google Scholar (‘that campaign predates the Antiochene war, occurring probably some time in the 190s’); Ameling, W., in I.Prusias ad Hypium (Bonn 1985) 3Google Scholar; Mitchell, S., Anatolia. Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor 1 (Oxford and New York 1993) 23 (with n.115)Google Scholar; Strobel, K., ‘Herakleia [7: Pontica]’, NPauly 5.366 (196–190)Google Scholar; Bittner (n.2) 84–5 (with n.510), 93.
5 Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (Princeton 1950) 314, 1196 n.38Google Scholar; see also, e.g., Vitucci (n.2) 51–3; Jones, A.H.M., The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (2nd edn, Oxford 1971) 151, 419 n.9.Google Scholar
6 SEG 1.440 (letter of Cornelius Scipio to Colophon, c. 190 BC); Syll. 3 618 = R.K. Sherk, Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore 1969) no. 35, ll.10–15 (letter of the Scipio brothers to Heraclea by Latmus, 189) with Wörrle, M., ‘Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos, I: Antiochos III., Zeuxis und Herakleia’, Chiron 18 (1988) 428–30.Google Scholar See also their letter to Prusias I, which belongs to the same time: Polyb. 21.11.2–3.
7 E.g. Bittner (n.2) 96 (with n.582).
8 E.g. Livy, Per. 72–6. See Laqueur, R., ‘Localchronik’, RE 13.1101Google Scholar; Bittner (n.2) 96.
9 So already, e.g., Laqueur (n.8) 1101; Janke (n.2) 136–8, who put this episode as one such example among several in Memnon's history; Gruen (n.4) 736 (who, however, still dated Prusias' assault on Heraclea to the 190s; see n.4 above). Pace Jacoby, F. in his comments on Memnon in FGrH III.b, p. 269.Google Scholar
10 For 185 as the then traditional dating for the death of Prusias, see references in Meyer (n.1) 75 n.2 (who, however, broke the line, by opting for 190), and Meischke, K., Zur Geschichte des Königs Eumenes II. von Pergamon (Pirna 1905) 23, 27Google Scholar (see n.17 below).
11 For the death of Prusias I in the late 180s, see, e.g., Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea 3 (Gotha 1903) 74Google Scholar n.1 (182); Brandis (n.3) 519 (after the war against Eumenes II); Hopp (n.2) 42; Derow, P.S., ‘Prusias I Cholus’ and ‘Prusias II Cynegus’, OCD (3rd edn) 1268 (182)Google Scholar; Schottky, M., ‘Prusias I.’ and ‘Prusias II.’, NPauly 10.491–2 (182).Google Scholar
12 E.g. Polyb. 22.20.8 and 24.1.2 with the comments by Walbank, F.W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius 3 (Oxford 1979) 212Google Scholar and 254 respectively, who also provided references to further bibliography.
13 Not surprisingly, Magie felt uncomfortable: he also made a reference to ‘not many years’, but refrained from making statements about the dating of Prusias’ assault on Heraclea (Magie (n.5) 314, 1196 n.38), whereas Vitucci (n.2) 64 n.1 simply questioned the validity of this statement by Memnon.
14 E.g. Brandis (n.3) 519; Willrich, H., ‘Eumenes II.’, RE 6.1096Google Scholar; Habicht (n.3) 1098; Jones (n.5) 151; Hansen (n.4) 97; Hopp (n.2) 40, 42; Ager, S.L., Interstate Arbitrations in the Greek World, 337–90 B.C. (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1996) 303Google Scholar; Schottky, ‘Prusias I.’ (n.11) 491. For what this ‘part of Mysia’ could have meant, see, e.g., Meischke (n.10) 26–7, 28; Habicht, C., ‘Über die Kriege zwischen Pergamon und Bithynien’, Hermes 84 (1956) 92–6Google Scholar; Hansen (n.4) 97, 100; Hopp (n.2) 40 (with n.31); Mitchell (n.4) 24 and n.135, with further bibliography in Baronowski, D.W., ‘The status of the Greek cities of Asia Minor after 190 B.C.’, Hermes 119 (1991) 452 n.4Google Scholar; Strobel, K., ‘Galatien und seine Grenzregionen’, in Schwertheim, E. (ed.), Forschungen in Galatien (Bonn 1994) 34Google Scholar (and n.60), 36, 40; Schottky, ‘Prusias I.’ (n.11) 491. Cf. Burstein, S.M., ‘The aftermath of the Peace of Apamea’, AJAH 5 (1980) 1Google Scholar (‘at the root of the war was Prusias’ refusal to accept the decision of Cn. Manlius Vulso awarding Phrygia Epictetus to Eumenes’).
15 E.g. Brandis, C.G., ‘Galatia’, RE 7.528Google Scholar (‘about 188 B.C.’); Habicht (n.3) 1096 (‘ca.186/83’), 1098 and Habicht, C., ‘The Seleucids and their rivals’, CAH 8 (2nd edn, 1989) 325Google Scholar (‘hostilities began in c.187’); Hopp (n.2) 40–1 (‘already soon after 188 B.C.’); Burstein (n.14) 1 (the war ‘broke out soon after 188 and lasted until 183’); Strobel (n.14) 34–5; Errington, R.M., ‘Eumenes II’, OCD (3rd edn) 568 (187–183)Google Scholar; Bittner (n.2) 85–6; Schottky, , ‘Prusias I.’ (n.11) 491Google Scholar; Sartre, M., L'Anatolie hellénistique de l'Égée au Caucase: 334–31 av. J. -C. (Paris 2003) 200.Google Scholar
16 So already, e.g., Meyer (n.1) 75 (with n.3): 185/4, dating the end of this war to 184; Niese (n.11) 70 (with n.2): the war started in c. 186, on the premise that it should have ended in 185/4, and 72: the war lasted a short time and ended in 184; Vitucci (n.2) 52 (‘c. 186’); McShane, R.B., The Foreign Policy of the Attalids of Pergamum (Urbana 1964) 160 (before 184)Google Scholar; Hansen (n.4) 97 (the war started ‘sometime before 184 B.C.’); Mehl, A., ‘Eumenes II.’, NPauly 4.252 (186–183).Google Scholar
17 Meischke (n.10) 22–3 (his reference should, in fact, be Polyb. 22.7.8–9), who, however, referred to the Bithynian king at the time of this war as Prusias II, whose enthronement Meischke dated to 185; see Meischke (n.10) 23, 27.
18 Meischke (n.10) 27.
19 Polyb. 22.6.1–4; Livy 39.24.6–7. For the date of this embassy, see, e.g., Meischke (n.10) 16 (with n.6); Gruen (n.4) 551 (186). Cf. the senatorial commission, which was then dispatched to investigate the matter: Polyb. 22.6.5–6; Livy 39.27.1–10, and Meischke (n.10) 17: this commission returned to Rome in ‘late autumn 185’, with reference to Livy 39.33.1–2.
20 Polyb. 23.1.4, 23.3.1; Livy 39.46.9. Meischke (n.10) 19 (with n.3), 21 (with n.7).
21 The other possible explanation for this difference between the two embassies could have been, of course, that Philip was not yet offering his help to Prusias in late 186. But it is unlikely that Philip, who had been in conflict with the Attalids over the Thracian cities, would have missed the earliest opportunity to weaken the Attalid power.
22 Nepos, Hann. 10–11.
23 See I.Pergamon I 65 = OGI 298 (‘soon after 183’); Nepos, Hann. 10–11. See also L. Robert, OMS II 1183–4 (183) = R.E. Allen, The Attalid Kingdom. A Constitutional History (Oxford 1983) 211, no. 7 (184/3), with Vitucci (n.2) 56 (184); Habicht (n.14) 99 and Habicht (n.3) 1099.
24 Armenia (and Artaxata): Strabo 11.14.6, p. 528; Plut. Luc. 31.3–4. Crete: Nepos, Hann. 9; Iust. 32.4.3–6. For Rhodes, see Niese (n.11) 70 n.5, with reference to Nepos, Hann. 13.2 (Hannibal addressed the Rhodians in a speech about the deals of Cn. Manlius Vulso in Asia). Plut. Flam. 20.2.
25 Nepos, Hann. 10.2; Iust. 32.4.2. Meischke (n.10) 27 proposed that the war started before the arrival of Hannibal and, therefore, doubted Justin's evidence for the two following reasons: first, Hannibal would have been more eager to come to Bithynia after the beginning of the war, which would have allowed him to demonstrate his military skills and, second, Nepos' ‘Hann. 10.2’ (in fact, Hann. 10.1–3) allegedly suggests that some military engagements had occurred already before Hannibal's coming to Bithynia. But the first argument is hardly convincing: Hannibal could just as well have provoked Prusias to start the war for the same reason; and Prusias could have been more eager to welcome Hannibal, if the war was expected, or planned, in the future. Meischke's second argument was based on the fact that Nepos first mentions Hannibal only in connection with the naval battle that Hannibal won by the above-mentioned stratagem (Nepos, Hann. 10–11; see n.22 above), even though several military engagements between the two kingdoms had occurred prior to that battle. However, since Nepos’ work focuses on Hannibal, Nepos most likely omits everything that is not directly connected with Hannibal's military exploits. And, finally, Nepos says that Hannibal prepared the kingdom of Bithynia for this war, by training the army and establishing important alliances, which refutes both Meischke's arguments.
26 Cf., e.g., Hansen (n.4) 98: Hannibal arrived before the war started.
27 E.g., Errington (n.15) 568; Mitchell (n.4) 24; Habicht (n.15) 328.
28 Robert, OMS II 1183–4 = Allen (n.23) 211, no. 7, ll.11–13 (Telmessus), dated to 183 (Robert) or 184/3 (Allen), with Habicht (n.14) 99 and Habicht (n.3) 1099, and K. Strobel, ‘Keltensieg und Galatersieger’, in Forschungen in Galatien (n.14) 88 n.117 (‘November/December 184’); I.Pergamon I 65 (= OGI 298).3 (‘soon after 183’).
29 Polyb. 23.1.4, 23.3.1; Livy 39.46.9 (see n.20 above).
30 So already Meischke (n.10) 19 n.3, 22.
31 This does not mean by itself, of course, that Hannibal's naval victory chronologically preceded the victory of Attalus near Mt Lypedros: Nepos (Hann. 10.1–3) mentions several military engagements, which had been won by the Attalid forces, before this naval battle took place, and Attalus' victory could have been one of these battles. See also Iust. 32.4.6. On the other hand, there are no grounds for following Hansen (n.4) 97–9, who put the battle at Mt Lypedros in the ‘early phase of the war’.
32 It is true that the Apamean settlement restored to the Attalids ‘that part of Mysia of which Prusias had formerly deprived Eumenes’: Polyb. 21.45.10 (tr. W.R. Paton); cf. Livy 38.3.15, who speaks of the whole of Mysia. But there is no evidence in either Polybius or Livy that this territory happened to be retained by Prusias, and, as we have seen above, the envoys of Eumenes II to Rome never made such a complaint.
33 So also McShane (n.16) 160.
34 E.g. Niese (n.11) 71; Hansen (n.4) 98 (who likewise proposed that Cyzicus was on Eumenes' side as well); Hopp (n.2) 41 n.33.
35 Polyb. 25.2.13. Whether these cities participated in the war (on the side of Eumenes II) has been debated; see, e.g., Habicht (n.15) 330 (with n.13), who was inclined to think that they did.
36 Cf. Habicht (n.3) 1096–1101, presenting these two conflicts as separate wars: ‘Expansion am Pontos’ (1096–7) and ‘Krieg gegen Eumenes II’ (1098–1101), because he had accepted the dating of Prusias’ assault on Heraclea [n. 36 cont.] Pontica in the 190s, i.e. before the Apamean settlement. This view, as we have seen, derives from the opinion that can be traced back to Meyer (n.1) 75 (with nn. 2 and 3), who put the siege of Heraclea Pontica by Prusias in the period between 200 and 196 and his war against Eumenes II in 185/4.
37 See Niese (n.11) 70–2.
