American Football:

The following questions are with Josh Katzowitz, who is a long time awardwinning sports writer who has regularly covered both professional and college level sports. The following is from his ‘about me’ section in Forbes “After more than a decade in the newspaper business writing about virtually every professional and major college sport for publications like the Cincinnati Post and the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle, I joined CBSSports.com and covered the NFL for five years. While doing so, I wrote books about Heisman Trophy winner and first-round NFL draft pick Johnny Manziel, legendary football coach Sid Gillman and the University of Cincinnati football program. I've also contributed to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Boston Globe, and in 2013, I established a podcast, Mightier Than the Sword, that deals with writing, journalism and the people who produce it.” He is a massively knowledgeable sports writer and the perfect person to interview for this.

Q: As someone who is In the American football world how much do you know about rugby and how did you learn this?

A: Honestly, I don't know much about rugby. I remember when I was a kid that, if you were watching ESPN late at night, you'd sometimes see a rugby match from South Africa or New Zealand or you could watch Australian Rules Football. But I didn't really know the rules for either sport. In college, I had friends who played rugby as a club sport, but all I remember about that is they liked to drink beer during and after matches and sometimes, they'd show up at after-parties with bruises all over their body. Every once in a while, one of those rugby players would get naked during a party. I'm still not sure why that would happen. I also knew a family friend when I was young who played rugby recreationally, but I remember that he broke his neck while they were in a scrum. Maybe, subconsciously, that scared me from ever wanting to get to know too much about the sport.

Q: while you have played and watched it how much has American football changed. As in tactics and rules?

A: The biggest way American football has changed in the past decade or so (or maybe even before that) is the league's emphasis on scoring as many points as possible. That's why quarterbacks are protected from being hit by defenders to an almost absurd amount. That's why defensive backs, on every play, are in danger of being penalized for pass interference or defensive holding, so much so that neutral observers often deem these penalties unfair. That's why the owners have placed such an emphasis on hiring offensive mastermind coaches who are in their 30s, like Sean McVay, Matt LeFleur and Kyle Shanahan. Offense rules all, and because of it, American football is, by far, the most popular sport in the U.S.

C:From this interview we can clearly see that for an American playing Football Rugby is something that they are aware of and think is vaguely interesting but at the same time never really spent any proper time looking into it. From a lot of the people I talked to about American Football. Who play Rugby they had the same story, they were aware of American Football but never spent any time watching a game.

Also Josh Katzowitz is saying that the way American Football adapted to bring in as many viewers as possible, Is they have put more of an emphasis on scoring as many points as possible. Today in rugby it is very common for teams to go for the drop kick rather than the try. The small amount of guaranteed points rather than chance of lots more points. This can make rugby a lot less interesting and slower.

When comparing Rugby to American Football there are 3 main differences that everyone notices. Obviously there are countless other differences but these are the main 3. In this section I will talk about these differences as well as how they have formed and how they will shape the future of NFL.

The first difference is the protection. The pads of an American Football player consist of Shoulder pads, a helmet, upper body and thigh pads. These pads are vitally important. As although it is a joke between rugby players that the pads are because Americans are “wusses”. Really it is because American Football is an utterly ruthless, dangerous sport. A defensive player will do anything to get the man with the ball to the floor. Whether that means jumping into them at full speed while they are mid-jump, or if it means hitting them so hard they quite literally flip. These pads have been in the sport ever since the beginning when it ‘evolved’ from Rugby Football. They started off as leather helmets a lot like the scrum caps that we know today. Then as the players got bigger and the tackles got harder the need for more protection meant that the helmets turned into the moulded polycarbonate helmets that we know today but without the mask (cage) in front of the face. Then slowly the cage was built up until it looked like it does today.

The typical American football player has several pads but three main ones. The shoulder pads, thigh pads, knee pad Each team in the NFL even has its own equipment manager whose only job is to look after the pads and helmets etc.

The need for pads in American Football essentially stems from the size of the players and the size of the hits. To be a linesmen is the NFL you have to be at least six feet 1 inches with some players being up to six feet 8 inches that will face you.

The second difference is the stoppage time between each play. This is a difference that American football has had since the early 1900’s and probably earlier. I believe this would have originally come from the need or wanting to be able to have completely different plays rather than repeating the same few plays that a rugby team did.

An American Football team can have 100’s of plays they can execute at any time. Whereas a rugby team may only have 10 to 23. This allows for more variety and a very interesting game to watch.

When comparing American Football and Rugby the best sport I can find that is in between the two is Rugby league. Where although it is obviously closer to rugby there is stoppage time so it makes it the perfect sport to show how when even a little stoppage time is introduced a lot more plays can be learnt and executed.

However I must admit it is easier for American Football players to use many plays as the QB (quarter back) has an earpiece in which the coach tells him what move to do. Rugby scrum-half’s don’t have this luxury and must be trained to know what move is best in the split second they have before passing.

The final difference that I will talk about is how an American Football team has an offensive group (For when they have the ball) a defensive group (For when they don’t have the ball and a special teams (For kicks, kick returns etc). This difference stems from having the stoppage time. As American Football teams got more money and more players left College and joined the NFL It was clear that they had enough resources and manpower to have many different very specialised players.

The equivalent to this in Rugby would obviously be forwards and backs. However, they aren’t as specialised as Football. Although they do have specialised jobs and places on the field but if they really needed to a back could do what a forward could do and a forward could do what a back does (As is demonstrated whenever a player gets sent off). Never could a defensive linesman stand in for a Wide receiver.

American Football’s viewership is up 17% from last season and as Players lifespan of playing the game becomes longer and more college players join the NFL I can only see the sport becoming more popular and interesting as more people discover It around the world.

Rugby Union Rules:

Known simply as rugby, rugby union is a full contact sport involving 15 players on each team, with 7 substitutes on the bench. The aim of the game is to score more points than the other side and points are scored through tries, conversions, penalty kicks and drop goals. At the end of the game, if the scores are level then the game ends in a draw.

Called ‘laws’, the rules of rugby union are defined by the International Rugby Board. The most basic law of the game is that no player is allowed to throw the ball forward to a teammate. In rugby, passes have to be thrown sideways or backwards to a teammate while the other ways to move the ball towards the opposition’s goal line to score points is by kicking or running with the ball.

To prevent the attacking side from scoring, players are allowed to tackle the opponent in possession of the ball. Players can only tackle by wrapping their arms around their opponents to bring them to the ground and players are not allowed to tackle opponents above the shoulder, or to use their legs to tackle or trip them.

Rugby Union:

This interview is with Phil Marshall. Who works with Sky. At the beginning of his career he worker in the tiny and very new NFL team at sky. He then moved on and now works as director of production at Sky Sports. Phil Marshall is Director of Production at Sky Sports. “He’s spent the past year ensuring that all of Sky’s huge volumes of sports content have been produced safely & in the most appropriate way throughout the pandemic, working with rights owners and industry partners to ensure a consistent approach.

Prior to his current role working across the broad range of content production, Marshall’s worked in various transformational, operational and editorial roles at Sky, in particular producing rugby union & launching the F1 channel in 2012.”

Q:

So my first question is while you have played or kind of watched rugby, how's the game changed in tactics and rules?

A:

Oh, good question. Well, I'm getting quite old. I'm 42 now. Um, so I think I started playing when I was about seven and then I played an awful lot, but then I was a producer of rugby for sky I for seven or eight years and then now I, now I kind of watch it. So how's it changed? I think I think it's changed in a lot of ways. I think. Um, I think when I started playing it wasn't a professional sport. When professionalism came in 1996-7 time, I think, I think that's when, players and individual started to need to take it an awful lot more seriously. And I think that's when people start to get bigger and bigger and I think that's increased the collisions, over the course of the last, the last couple of decades. and I think now it's incredibly, it's, it's, it's a much more intense sport. I think we probably argue potentially a little bit more skilful, many years ago when it was more amateur sport. I think it's much more intense now and the collisions are huge.Think I there's a couple, I mean, there's a couple of other things I really, I think, I, when I was younger and growing up and when England won the world cup in 2003, and I think, I think rugby also had a lot more stars back in those days, players who played week in week out for their clubs and also for their country. I think the intensity and the, amount of rugby has meant that those top players don't play weekend week out for their clubs anymore. I think it's slightly tougher. Um, I don't think there's quite as many stars in the world of rugby as they used to be.

Q:

How much do you know about American Football and how'd you learn this.

A:

Yeah, of course. So, I, my first I worked sky sports for 20 years, right. Since university, but my first proper job at sky was, uh, it was called an editorial assistant on, on the NFL team. Yeah. And that NFL team was only about two of us, bringing in the feeds from America every Sunday night and, and putting studio production around and producing NFL for, for people in the UK to see and so I learned an awful lot that year, working on NFL. I learned about the sport , I had supported Kansas city chiefs. Cuz they had a brilliant running back, kick receive, kick returner called Dante hall who used to used get kickoffs and score, score, brilliant touchdowns. I, yeah, I, it is interesting. I, learnt a lot about it in that year, did some reporting as well around it. And then, ever since then Sunday nights for me, i’m, sitting back in front tele and watching actually a couple of live NFL games. I love it.

Q:

Awesome. Thank you so much. You cause a lot of the people I've talked to about kind of, especially people that kind of a massive, their rugby about like football, they just had no interest in it and kind of have no experience with it. I just quite talk cool. Talking to someone who is kind of quite very knowledgeable about it and interested in it

A:

That's cool. Yeah. I mean, I, I love rugby. I, I, I think it's a, a sport with a few challenges right now. Yeah. I like stars. The injuries, concussion, um, fragmented season, internationals versus club versus country, all that stuff. But yeah, also I think American football was fantastic to put, to watch I'm lucky enough to work at sky in partner with BBC in America. We're both aimed by the same company called podcast and NBC do Sunday, NBC Sunday night football, which watched by 30 million people every Sunday night in America. And I've been lucky enough to go to a couple of games with NBC and the, the, production and the, um, the work that goes into its, uh, its a live NFL is, is absolutely phenomenal because the American an audience, uh, I absolutely love it.

Q:

Yeah. Um, yeah. So talk about the American audience as the, cause the American system, having a draft every year and kind of having a college team that everyone's, everyone's associated with a college team. Can I, what is your pain on that and why is it that so well in America and America have that and thrive upon an, all of their big sports, but just don't have it in England.

A:

No, no we don't. And obviously college football's very different to NFL. regularly, regularly attracting six figure audiences to the live college football games, but isn't isn't is just a different, a different option to NFL in terms of a sort of viewing perspective. yeah, I think is different. The UK in terms we've been brought up with football clubs, rugby clubs, and it's very tribal. Whereas say, you know, watching Anfield tonight, right. It's, it's a very tribal culture. As I mentioned too, at the beginning, I was brought up in CRO and went to school and I support crystal palace. Yeah. it it's just a different system in the states. You're right. College colleges are, colleges are massive and um, and the support goes to colleges, but then it also goes, goes it also too goes to, to an NFL teams, right. If you live in new Orleans, you're a saints fan. Yeah. Um, um, and 70,000 people pack into that day, my every, every, every couple of every couple of weeks and watch and watch this new saints. So likewise, I've been in Austin, Texas, and the Texas Longhorns is the college team there and yeah. You get hundred of thousands of people going people to a game. That's absolutely incredible.

Q:

If you control over rugby, would you improve, how do you improve the sport in terms of kind of like making more people turn up to each game and just making a more enjoyable sport to watch? Where has it kind of, it makes the stars like you're talking about

A:

It's a million dollar question, right? Yeah. All, all the, all the, all the, all the cheap execs, the rugby thinking no about that and how they can do it in the various competitions all over, all over Europe and the world. And, and I, I guess, similar with any sort, right. Yeah. I, I think there needs to be a global calendar where, um, The, the right amount of games are played from a safety point of view to enable the stars to play regularly and safely. Yeah. And I think, I think of rugby audience, needs to know when rugby's happening, when international rugby's happening, when, domestic rugby's happening, when European rugby's happening. And I think it, when lions rugby's happening and I think it needs to become, I think there needs to come a, with a global calendar that works, that it is, um, built over over the first few years and then becomes a stable diet of a rugby viewing audience and I think that will create some continuity consistency and, um, bring more people in. I mean, what I would say is I've been some apprenticeship games recently and if family atmosphere with knows absolutely fantastic. And that in inclusivity, at, at the games in terms of a is, is brilliant and something that I don't think rugby, I don't think rugby will lose, but it's something that rugby needs to actually, I think it's a huge strength of rugby and actually something that if it needs to build on

C:

Phil Marshall tells us that the problem with rugby is the lack of stars and people that everyone wants to watch week in week out. American Football has this with Tom Brady and Patrick Mahomes. The English system does not put as much stress on having a face of the franchise. However that being said clearly Rugby used to have these stars and as the physical and mental stress of a player has increased they can no longer play week in, week out and be someone that everyone turns up to watch every week.

Also something that Phil tells us t is that for him and many others like him who watched a little American Football a few times it has become something they do whenever they can. So for American Football putting more emphasis on introducing the wider world especially the UK to American Football could be massively influential for the future of the game.

In this subsection I will talk about what makes it unique from other sports especially American Football. Like American Football I will point out what I think are the main three this is to make it a fair comparison.

The first thing that makes rugby unique is having to pass the ball backwards. When teaching little children Rugby for the first time passing the ball backwards is the first thing they are told and the most important rule all the way to international Rugby. This is the exact opposite of American Football where Quarter Backs are trained to throw the ball as far forward as they can from when they start.

A Drawing used to teach kids the way they can pass in Rugby

However 100 years ago at the beginning of American Footballs progression doing a pass and throwing the ball was a very rare with the majority of plays being runs. This is a lot closer to rugby and clearly shows how the sports diverged to become so different. Where rugby stayed true to Rugby Football American Football chose a different path that has made it so different.

The Second thing that makes Rugby unique is it’s point system. Football ( as in Premier League). One goal is one point. In Rugby a try is 5 points, a conversion is 2 points and a drop kick is worth 3 points. In American Football a touchdown is worth 6, a field goal after a touchdown is worth 1 and a touchdown after a touchdown is worth 2 points and finally a field goal is worth 3 points. These point values are a lot higher than most sports but with few tries or touchdowns a game it means most games will normally end with scores in the 30’s or 40’s.

No other sport that I can think of has such similar point systems and such similar methods of scoring points. This shows how these sports have clearly evolved from the same common ancestor.

The Final thing that makes Rugby unique is the fact that for a professional sport that millions of people watch worldwide the players are not payed the ridiculous sums of money that other players of sports enjoy. Most professional rugby players earn from £70K£130K which while being a lot of money is not the same as the on average 8.73 million pounds payed to Football players and American football the average is £860,000.

The reason for this salary difference is the amount of money the teams have and the systems involved in the sport in order to get the teams money. Most of the money the teams have comes from brands, advertisement and endorsement. Because of the massive popularity of the EPL ( English Premier League) advertisers will pay a lot more for their logos to be on the teams kit. The same occurs within American Football. Rugby just doesn’t have the cults of viewers that brings in the massive money needed to pay players millions of pounds.

In conclusion rugby needs the ethos where everyone supports a team and you don’t choose a team it’s the team that is closest to you that is yours. This creates a relationship between the supporter and team that you find in American Football a lot but not as much in Rugby. Having that ethos would bring in the massive amount of money that other sports enjoy as well as introduce millions more people to the sport

Conclusion:

In conclusion I think that the way that American Football works as a whole ( as in having a draft every year) is a lot better than the way Rugby works and although the sports may seem completely opposite they will in the future grow to become more and more similar. They will take each others ‘best bits’ as to improve both of their sports.

I also think that Rugby will become a lot bigger in America as America like Japan or New Zealand has a sport that contains many aspects of Rugby and has the facilities and manpower to become the global superpower for Rugby.

Finally I think many players of Rugby and players of American Football will switch between the sports. An example of a player who has already done this is Christian Scotland-Williamson who currently plays for Harlequins and played for a period with the Pittsburgh Steelers. He was born in England and standing at 6ft 9in he saw the American Football and the way it works as a professional level to be a better way to make his career as there is much more money in it.

Bibliography:

For those interested these are the full original Rugby rules: i.Kick off from Middle must be a place-kick. ii.Kick Out must not be from more than 25 yards out of goal, nor from more than 10 yards if a place-kick. iii.Fair Catch is a catch direct from the foot. iv.Charging is fair, in case of a place-kick, as soon as a ball has left the ground; in case of a kick from a catch, as soon as the player offers to kick, but he may always draw back, unless he has actually touched the ball with his foot. v.Off-Side. A player is off his side, if the ball has touched one of his own side behind him until the other party kick it. vi.A player being off his side is to consider himself as out of the game, and is not to touch the ball in any case whatever (either in or out of touch): or in any way to interrupt the play, and is or course incapable of holding the ball. vii.Knocking on, as distinguished from throwing on, is altogether disallowed under any circumstances whatsoever. In case of this rule being broken, a catch from such a knock on shall be equivalent to a fair catch. viii.It is not lawful to take the ball off the ground, except in touch, either for a kick or throw on. ix.First of his Side is the player nearest the ball on his side. x.Running In is allowed to any player on his side, provided he does not take the ball off the ground, or through touch. xi.If, in the case of a run in, the ball be held in a scrummage, it shall not be lawful for the holder to transmit it to another of his own side. xii.No player may be held, unless he is himself holding the ball. xiii.It is not fair to hack and hold at the same time. xiv.No hacking with the heel, or unless below the knee, is fair. xv.No one wearing projecting nails or iron plates on the soles or heels of his shoes or boots shall be allowed to play. xvi.Try at Goal.— A ball touched between the goal posts may be brought up to either of them, but not between. xvii.The ball when punted must be within, and when caught without the line of goal. xviii.The ball must be place-kicked and not dropped, and if it touch two hands the try will be lost. xix.It shall be a goal if the ball go over the bar (whether it touch or no) without having touched the dress or person of any player; but no player may stand on the goal bar to interrupt it going over. xx.No goal may be kicked from touch. xxi.Touch.— A player may not in any case run with the ball in touch. xxii.A player standing up to another may hold one arm only, but may hack him or knock the ball out of his hand if he attempts to kick it, or go beyond the line of touch. xxiii.No agreement between two players to send the ball straight out shall be allowed. xxiv.A player having touched the ball straight for a tree and touched the tree with it, may drop from either side if he can, but one of the opposite party may oblige him to go to his own side of the tree. xxv.In case of a player getting a fair catch immediately in front of his own goal, he may not retire behind the line to kick it. xxvi.No player may take the ball out of the Close. xxvii.No player may stop the ball with anything but his own person. xxviii.If a player take a punt when he is not entitled to it, the opposite side may take a punt or drop, without running, (after touching the ball on the ground) if the ball has not touched two hands, but such drop may not be a goal. xxix.That part of the island which is in front of the line of goal is in touch, that behind it in goal. xxx.The discretion of sending into goal rests with heads of sides and houses, or their deputies.[2] xxxi.Heads of sides, or two deputies appointed by them, are the sole arbiters of all disputes. xxxii.All matches are drawn after 5 days or after 3 days if no goal has been kicked. xxxiii.Two Bigside balls must always be in the Close during a match or Bigside. xxxiv. xxxv.Three Præpostors constitute a Bigside. xxxvi.At a Bigside the two players highest in the School shall toss up. xxxvii.Old Rugbeians shall be allowed to play at the matches of football, not, however, without the consent of the two heads of the sides; but no stranger may have a place-kick at goal.

No football shall be played between the goals till the Sixth match.

These are the links for where stats/ Information was found:

History of professional football in America - youtube

Rugby football - wiki evolution of the the Football helmet - Smithsonian common Football injuries - National library of Medicine common rugby injuries - british journal of Medicine

NFL viewership last season - espn rugby football rules how do American Football teams make money - espn why did American Football abandon Rugby Football rules - quora

Average NFL Player Salary - Espn

How much do Rugby players earn - Rugby Dome

Take your eye off the ball - book

Rugby Union Rules the basics

Phil Marshall - SVG Europe

Josh Katzowitz - Forbes

King Mithradates VI: ruthless murderer or defender of the Hellenic world?

When people think of Rome’s greatest enemies people usually mention figures such as Hannibal, Attila , Spartacus or Cleopatra. One man usually not on this list is Mithradates VI of Pontus, also known as Mithradates the Great. But who was he, and was he a Hellenic hero or a merciless villain?

Mithradates ruled the Hellenic kingdom of Pontus on the southern Black Sea coast of modern-day Turkey. Despite presiding over a relatively small kingdom Mithradates fought against Rome for 40 years and came close to driving out the Romans out of the Hellenic world. It took three of Rome’s greatest generals, including Pompey, to finally get the better of him. The epic and long struggle ended with Mithradates committing suicide

King Mithradates. Pontic Kingdom during the 2nd Mithradatic War

In his book ‘Mithradates the Great, Rome’s Indomitable Enemy’ Professor Philip Matyszak describes Pontus as being in the centre of the world due to its location at the crossroads between Europe and Asia. Pontus was a small kingdom that could be described as ‘boxing above its weight’. It had rebelled against the Seleucid empire in 281BCE. After defeating Seleucid Emperor Seleucus I, Mithradates I declared himself king of the new kingdom.

During the reign of Mithradates’ father ,Mithradates V, Pontus had controlled a few key ports and had been able to take some land off the neighbouring kingdoms Paphlagonia and Cappadocia. This was due to Mithradates V helping Rome in the third Punic war against Carthage.

Rome had grown significantly in the previous two centuries. Having secured control of Italy, the Republic won three wars against Carthage and gained dominance over the western and central Mediterranean incorporating Sicily, most of Spain, southern Gaul and Tunisia. After this Rome began to target the Hellenistic world and successfully defeated Phillip V of Macedon and Antiochus III of the Seleucid empire to gain control of Macedonia and Greece.

In the year 129BCE the king of Pergamum, Atlas III, died and gave his kingdom to Rome in his will. This gave Rome a foothold in Asia, which worried many of the kingdoms there. Rome was now the established power in the region and there was no single kingdom that looked as if it could stop the Roman juggernaut.

Roman Republic 146 BCE

In the year 135BCE a comet flew across the earth. The peoples of Asia rejoiced as, according to prophecy, a messiah would be born who would be a great leader and triumph over their enemies. This was not the birth of Jesus, which occurred over 100 years later in Bethlehem. This comet coincided with the birth of a new prince in Sinope, capital of the Pontic kingdom. The boy’s name was Mithradates, which means “sent by Mithra” in Ancient Persian. Mithra was the God of the sun, light and truth.

According to historian Joshua J Mark, the future Mithradates VI was taught multiple languages and raised as a proper Persian prince. He was also instructed in warfare and the arts. Mithradates learnt about the highly successful Persian emperors Cyrus and Darius the Great but most notably he was taught about his idol Alexander the Great of Macedon. At this young age Mithradates gained ambitions of reforming Alexander’s Greco- Persian empire.

Roman historian Julian described how, at the age of 10, Mithradates was able to tame an unbroken Cappadocian stallion and then dazzled and amazed local spectators by his ability to ride it. The horse raced off across a field and it looked as if at any moment Mithradates would be flung off. However, with great skill and strength he clung on and managed to control the beast. This tale bears an uncanny similarity to that of Alexander, Mithradates’ hero, who had tamed a stallion at a very young age. Many argue this suggests there is a good chance that Mithradates’ story of equestrian mastery is untrue. True or not, this tale tells us that Mithradates was obsessed with trying to be like Alexander. Little else is known about Mithradates’ childhood.

In the year 120BCE the unexpected happened. Mithradates father was assassinated, most likely with poison. He left his kingdom to his two sons and his widow Laodice, who was meant to share power once the sons came to age. The Queen wanted power for herself so she began plotting to get rid of her sons. Despite his youth, Mithradates recognised the threats to his life. He escaped his mother’s reach and went into hiding.

During Mithradates’ time in hiding he began to learn and experiment with poisons. The motivation for this was paranoia that he would befall the same fate as his father. Mithradates decided to build up his immunity to the most common poisons. He also developed an antidote, which helped to slowly build up a tolerance of arsenic. Towards the end of his life such was Mithradates’ immunity that he was able to survive a dose of arsenic sufficient to kill three fully grown men.

Mithradates would return to Pontus sometime between 113 and 116BCE to reclaim his throne. He imprisoned his mother and his brother at her villa where he gave them a banquet. In the pudding he laid his secret weapon. After eating the poison-laced food, it didn’t take long before the threat of his mother and brother was finished off. Mithradates’ next act was to marry his sister, Laodice the younger, to ensure his children were seen as legitimate.

Now Mithradates had secured complete control of his throne, he could look to improve the Pontic Army and expand its territories around the Black Sea. Despite his hatred for the Romans, Mithradates knew that Pontus was not ready for a war with Rome and needed to build up its strength first.

During his mother’s reign the Pontic army had gone into a decline and Mithradates knew it required vast improvements. He started this by recruiting 6,000 men trained in the traditional Greek Hoplite manner. These would make up the core of his army. He also recruited Cretan archers as mercenaries who he knew where superior to his light infantry.

A classic Greek Hoplite.

In addition, Mithradates began to train men in the traditional Macedonian Phalanx as well. These men were in the same formation that the Greek hoplites used. However, instead of using a 6ft long spear, they used a 18ft pike. This wall of pikes would prove impossible to penetrate from the front but from was very vulnerable from the flanks and rear

Mithradates hoped he could replicate Alexander’s use of the formation that was able to conquer the Persian Empire. Mithradates knew that he also needed a strong cavalry in order to defeat the Romans and the other kingdoms of Anatolia. Most likely, he used the elite Cappadocians to make up his cavalry force with a small personal guard for himself and generals. He also began to recruit a force of scythed chariots that could be used to smash through enemy infantry ranks and disrupt formations. While the infantry would act as an anvil, holding the enemy forces, in place Mithradates hoped to use his cavalry as the hammer to smash his enemies much like his hero, Alexander, had done

Mithradates realised that he would also need allies in order to take on Rome. He looked east to the kingdom of Armenia. It also had a new king, named

Tigranes, who was ambitious like Mithradates and wanted to extend his realm into Anatolia and Syria. To solidify the alliance, Mithradates married his daughter Cleopatra to Tigranes. The two kingdoms now had a strong bond and Tigranes was willing to aid Mithradates greatly against his war with Rome.

Tigranes and Mithradates

Finally, Mithradates was conscious that he needed to improve the Pontic navy in order to gain supremacy over the Black Sea. He recruited experienced Greek sailors from around the Black Sea coast and the Aegean, and ordered ships to be constructed along his Black Sea ports. The coves of the southern Black Sea coasts proved the perfect hideouts for his navy, which saved Mithradates the cost of building expensive ports.

These coves were also the hideouts for Black Sea pirates with whom Mithradates made treaties in order to prevent them from attacking Pontic Ships. He also used them to attack and raid Romans in the Aegean. These pirates are credited with capturing a young Julius Caesar. Once he had complete control of the Black Sea, the king could control trade thus greatly enlarging the Pontic treasury.

Mithradates had started his reign by annexing the neighbouring state of Trapezeus. This would serve as an important naval base and trading hub for his Black Sea empire. Mithradates would later receive an ambassador from King Parisades who ruled Crimea to ask for aid against the raiding Sycthians. Mithradates immediately sent an army and part of his navy to deal with the threat. Mithradates’ new army crushed the Barbarians and Mithradates gained control of Crimea and most of the eastern Black Sea coast. This helped to reinforce his control of trade there and also gave him significantly more manpower and resources to call upon if he were to take on Rome.

An unexpected ally appeared in the west: King Nicomedes III of Bithynia. This was Mithradates’ next opportunity to increase further his growing power. Nicomedes had plenty of reasons to be angry at Rome. He ,like Mithradates’ father, had assisted the Romans in the third Punic war against Carthage and expected the Romans to give him Phrygia in return. Instead the Romans gave it to Mithradates’ father only taking it back after Mithradates V’s death. When Mithradates heard that the Bithynian king had denied Rome’s request for an army in Germania, he took his chance and quickly formed an alliance with Nicomedes.

The timing of this alliance was crucial. Most of the Roman army was stuck in North Africa fighting against Jugurtha and his Numidian rebels or fighting against hundreds of thousands of Barbarians flooding in from modern-day Germany and Denmark. All of this occupied most of the Republic’s attention so Mithradates and Nicomedes took the opportunity to invade the small kingdom of Paphlagonia, which was between their two kingdoms. The campaign went smoothly with the small kingdom unable to resist the two far larger nations.

When the news reached the senate in Rome it ordered Mithradates to leave at once. Mithradates obliged. However Nicomedes was less obedient. Instead of restoring the old king to the throne he renamed one of his sons to a more traditional Paphlagonian name and installed him on the throne as a puppet. This tactic greatly impressed Mithradates who took note and was now convinced the Nicomedes had the potential to be a very useful ally against Rome.

Mithradates also wanted to expand his influence further into Anatolia, notably into the kingdom of Cappadocia that was south of his realm. Luckily for Mithradates, his sister Laodice (another sister Laodice, not the one to which he was married) was married to the current king of Cappadocia, Ariathes VI. According to Greek historian Appian, the lands of Cappadocia had been part of the first ruler of Pontus’ territory. This gave Mithradates a reason to start plotting.

He decided to send Gordius, one of his most trusted generals, to assassinate the king. This was most likely done by poison using one of Mithradates’ many brews. With Ariathes’ death, Mithradates hoped his sister, who would now be acting regent, would ally with him and therefore put Cappadocia under Mithradates’ control. Despite his efforts, this proved not to be the case.

Unknown to Mithradates, Nicomedes also harboured ambitions of ruling Cappadocia. On learning of the king’s death, he rushed in with his army and he married Laodice. When Mithradates found out about these events he was furious. Not only were his plans to rule Cappadocia ruined but his strongest ally was now married to his sister. With great haste the king sent in his army and met the troops of Nicomedes in battle. Not much is known about the battle but it is understood is that Mithradates’ troops, who were now very experienced after their conquests in the Black Sea coast, were able to crush the Bithynian forces. Mithradates now installed his nephew Araithes VII to the Cappodocian throne. Mithradates also hoped he had gained control of the kingdom without arousing Romes attention. He would be wrong again.

To ensure that he could control his nephew, Mithradates sent Gordius to help advise the young king. However, to his shock, the young king saw through the trick and refused the help. Realising that he would not be able to control the king, Mithradates was yet again forced to invade the country with his 90,000 strong army and seized the kingdom. This time he installed someone far easier to control: his eight-year-old step son who was guided by Gordius They were both popular in Cappadocia. This helped to create some stability in the kingdom and ensure that, finally, Cappadocia was under Mithradates control.

The question has to be asked why Rome did not intervene this time? A large number of Rome’s allies rebelled as they felt that they should now be treated equally to the Romans themselves due to their loyalty to the city and sharing similar culture. This started the Social war in Rome with armies raiding across Italy, further distracting the Romans from affairs to the east. Mithradates used this and had even began to form alliances with the rebellious groups and was giving them financial aid.

After Mithradates’ invasion of Cappadocia Nicomedes believed that his kingdom would be next to be invaded by Mithradates so he turned to Rome to ask for assistance. The senate ordered both kings to remove their puppets from Cappadocia and Paphlagonia and allow the people of these kingdoms to choose a new king instead. Mithradates decided to bide his time and both kings agreed to acquiesce to Rome on this issue for the time being.

Mithradates wanted to test the Romans’ resolve. So, he asked his ally Tigranes to invade Cappadocia and he was successful. He then retreated and took many captives and loot from Cappadocia. Tigranes then looked east to Parthia. There would be little response from Rome, which gave Mithradates the impression that the republic was weak and boosted his confidence. Eventually, the Romans would place Ariobazarnes on the Cappadocian throne after Tigranes had been ordered to leave the kingdom.

Nicomedes III died in in 94 BCE leaving his son Nicomedes IV the throne. His kingdom was in a great debt to Rome so the Roman governor of Asia Aquillius ordered Nicomedes to raid unprotected Pontic ports in order to pay off his debt. Mithradates did not retaliate as he wished to appear as the victim not an aggressor thus preserving Pontic innocence in the conflict. Instead, he chose to wait for a larger attack whilst sending diplomats to ask the senate to contain Nicomedes’ aggression. The senate was not interested in diplomacy and the invasion of Mithradates’ lands was prepared.

Mithradates quickly invaded Cappadocia again to prevent the kingdom from aiding the coalition against him. He then prepared to meet Aquillius and Nicomedes to defend his kingdom. Appian claims that the coalition had amassed an army of 176,000 men to invade Pontus while he describes how Mithradates had a force of 300,000 men. Ancient historian Memnon claims that Mithradates had 200,000 under his command. Whichever number is correct, undoubtedly Mithradates had a sizeable force.

Although Mithradates planned the invasion and was the army’s supreme commander, he remained at the capital deploying troops to where they were required. This was very unusual for the time as most generals would lead from the front and command their armies in the field. Mithradates put brothers Archelaus and Neoptolemus, who had secured Crimea from the Scythians, in command. Mithradates gave his son Arcathius the command of the elite Armenian Cataphracts, which were his strongest cavalry that Mithradates hoped could fill the same role as Alexander’s elite Companion cavalry. The first Mithradatic war had begun.

The Roman part of the coalition was split into three armies of 40,000 while Nicomedes led the invasion with his army of 56,000. The vanguard of Mithradates’ army in the north, led by Archelaus, met Nicomedes at the Amnius river and crushed his forces. Nicomedes was forced to flee back to Aquillius, who was in Bithynia with his part of the army. Only 20,000 of Nicomedes’ army made it back to Nicomedia.

The bulk of Mithradates’ army faced Aquillius at Protopachium. Here, yet again, the Pontic forces were victorious. Aquillius was captured and Mithradates showed no mercy. Aquillius was forced to drink molten gold as his form of execution. This gruesome victor’s revenge was copied by the Parthians 40 years later after the battle of Carrea against Crassus.

One of the remaining Roman armies fled to Rome’s ally Rhodes while the other tried to fortify behind the walls of Laodicea. This proved to be a costly error as the population were strongly anti Roman and the legionnaires were handed over to the besieging Pontic Army. Mithradates now had control of almost all of Anatolia and decided to move his base of operations westward to the former capital of the Roman province of Asia, Pergamon. The only threat to his control of the eastern Aegean was now Rhodes and the Roman army that had fled there.

At this point in 88 BCE Mithradates decided to pull his greatest plan on the Romans. If the execution of Aquillius seemed brutal, Mithradates’ scheme would be on a completely new level of ruthlessness. Mithradates ordered the execution of all Latin speaking peoples in Anatolia. This event made Mithradates so famous that it would later be named the Asian Vespers.

It is estimated that 80,000 Latin-speaking inhabitants of Anatolia were killed in the course of a few days. Mithradates had told the public and his men that if a Latin person is killed then the killers had a right to take all their possessions. This incentive helped fuel the bloodthirstiness and ensured Mithradates’ plan worked with horrific efficiency. It also succeeded in attracting Rome’s attention. Famed generals Marius and Sulla vied for command of the job of facing Pontus. Sulla would be the victor in the competition to challenge Mithradates.

Mithradates realised that he would have to extinguish the Roman forces in Rhodes before he could make another move against the Romans directly. Rhodes was not an easy city to take. Demetrius, Son of Antigonus I, had besieged the city with 40,000 troops and 170 ships in a year-long siege but failed to take the city. Rhodes was an established naval power in the Aegean was a firm ally of Rome and could be a challenger to Mithradates naval control of the Aegean. For this reason, Mithradates decided it was essential to take the city. Despite a army and a navy attacking Rhodes, it was able to hold out. However, Mithradates did succeed in blockading the city so it would not be able to assist Rome but this also meant some of his fleet remained occupied.

Good news was on the horizon for Mithradates when he received an envoy from Athens arrived asking for assistance against Rome in Greece. The Athenians were ready to rebel against Rome but felt they were not strong enough to take on Rome alone. This was the moment Mithradates had been waiting for and he prepared an army to reinforce the Athenians. He sent his favoured general Archelaus to the island of Delos, which was home to a treasury dedicated to Apollo and home to many Romans. Archelaus seized the treasury and slaughtered all the Romans on the island - estimated to be about 20,000. Archelaus then sent 2,000 troops to Athens with the treasure from Delos to secure the alliance. With this the city formally declared war on Rome and asked fellow city states Thebes and Sparta to forget previous grudges and join the Pontic alliance Both agreed and Archelaus would then arrive seizing most of central and southern Greece.

Now Sulla, who had just defeated Marius, had a tough choice: to secure Italy or defeat the greatest threat to Rome since Hannibal. The city was bankrupt so Ancient sacrifices, which were over 500 years old, were sold in order to pay the army that would face the Pontic alliance in Greece. When it appeared things could get no worse for Sulla, in the next elections Cinna, who was pro Marius, was elected as consul.

This meant that Sulla had to lead his army into Greece without the support of the senate. Sulla was forced to provide pay and provisions for the army that he would lead and he found resistance from Marius’ supporters and gangs. Mithradates hoped that with all this going on in Italy the Romans would be forced to accept him as the rightful emperor of his eastern Greco-Persian empire and as the successor to Alexanders empire. However, the determined Sulla was unwilling to accept this without a fight.

Mithradates’ invasion of Greece was undertaken by three armies Firstly, his favoured son Arcathius, who had proven himself against Aquillius and Nicomedes, planned to lead an army through Thrace and then attack Macedonia from the east. Archelaus was due to bring his army up through Boeotia and invade Macedonia from the south while joining up with the third army. This third army planned to invade the large island of Euboea to secure supply routes for southern Greece. Mithradates also had 80,000 men in reserve to assist any army that needed support.

The Romans only had two legions in Greece at the time and they were sent to slow the march of Arcathius to prevent Sulla from being completely encircled. The Roman General with his five legions would now march to besiege Athens and its harbour Piraeus. Archelaus chose to station most of his forces in Piraeus as it could be easily resupplied by the Pontic navy, which had complete control of the Aegean.

Archelaus attempted to break the siege with an ambush by his cavalry but this was foiled by two deserters who went to Sulla and warned him about the impending attack. While Piraeus was holding out, Athens itself was struggling as it could not be easily supplied. The city began to starve but morale remained high. Sulla had further problems as he had ran out of money once more so he went to the most sacred sanctuary in Greece at Delphi and took the treasury, which was supposed to be for Apollo, telling the priests there that he would pay them back.

With new funds to support his army, Sulla was now able to take Athens and he treated the rebellious city with no mercy. Archelaus now understood that he could not maintain the defence of Piraeus so he left the city with his army to fight another day. Despite this set back, Mithradates was not concerned as his forces still greatly outnumbered Sulla and his undefeated army was confident that it could defeat the Roman General. Meanwhile, Sulla now sought out battle with Archelaus for central Greece before his army could be reinforced by Mithradates’ 80,000 reserves.

The two sides would meet at Chaeronea, which was where Phillip II of Macedon defeated the combined Athenian-Theban army to gain control of all of Greece 200 years previously Achelaus joined up with Arcathius’ army, which had been invading Macedonia and Thrace. However, Arcathius himself didn’t make it and Mithradates’ was devastated to hear of the death of his favoured son. With these reinforcements Archelaus now had a force of 120,000 men with 90 scythed chariots. Sulla, on the other hand, only had around 40,000 soldiers. However, at the core of this were five Roman legions that were the best heavy infantry in the Mediterranean and had proved itself to be superior to the Macedonian style phalanx many times in its conquest of Greece. The battle began with Archelaus sending his chariots towards the densely packed legionaries. In reaction, the well-drilled Romans moved out of the way forming gaps for the chariots to ride harmlessly past into and then the crew were killed.

Archelaus gave the order for his army to advance and concentrated his attack on the Roman left flank that was heavily outnumbered. However, it was positioned on high ground so was able to hold out against the Pontic attack and deal heavy casualties. Archelaus then sent some of his reserves to assist the attack but Sulla, realising the danger, charged in with his own cavalry reserve and steadied the flank. Archelaus now saw an opening to attack the now weaker right flank and he sent his remaining reserves to reinforce his left flank. However Sulla yet again was able to arrive and defeat the Pontic left, which then resulted in the Pontic right also breaking.

At this point Archelaus realised he was beaten and fled with his guard. The Pontic Phalanx that had performed well during the battle and had been steadily pushing the Romans back was now completely exposed on all sides. Despite the efforts of these veterans to organise a proper retreat, they were unable to outpace the Roman cavalry, which was then was able to capture them.

This was a disaster for Mithradates. For the 120,000 men that had fought in the battle only 10,000 managed to escape. Sulla claimed that he had only lost 20 men. Historians maintain that this figure is obviously untrue, nonetheless Sulla’s casualties were light; probably a few hundred to a thousand dead. Sulla then marched on Thebes and claimed half of the city’s territory giving it to the Gods. He claimed that this would pay off the debt that he owed to the Gods after borrowing the sacrifices at Delphi.

Archelaus, who was now in his haven in Euboea, joined up with the 80,000 reinforcements sent by Mithradates. The general knew that he would have to win a glorious battle against Sulla to regain his king’s respect after his humiliating defeat against Sulla. Luckily for him, Sulla also wanted to take on Archelaus again as he was now full of confidence after such a stunning victory. Despite his decisive victory, Sulla had just heard that his supporters had been slaughtered by Marius. Cinna had sent a small force to remove Sulla from command and now he had to choose whether to face Archelaus or his Roman adversaries.

The choice was taken away from Sulla when Archelaus sailed from Macedonia to Boetia to face him again; this time at Orchomenus. The battlefield was a wide open plain, which suited Archelaus’ chariots and also enabled the Pontic army to more easily use their numerical advantage. However, Sulla cleverly countered this by digging trenches around his flanks that would slow any cavalry or chariot advance and also make it hard for him to be encircled. Sulla’s army was arrayed in three lines. Behind the first was a row of stakes that would destroy any chariots attempting to drive through his ranks.

Scythed chariots which were used at the battle of Orchomenus

Archelaus began the battle by ordering his superior cavalry to attack both Roman flanks. On his right the attack was repulsed while on the left he gained some success but Sulla himself and his guard were able to push the cavalry back. Archelaus, who had not seen the stakes, ordered his chariots forward. This would be a critical mistake as when the chariots got to the stakes they spooked and turned around and went into Archelaus’ own infantry. This caused serious confusion among the Pontic army. As the army was made up of lots of different peoples and cultures communication was hard so the army lost all cohesion. Sulla, realising his opportunity, charged and most of the Pontic army was destroyed.

Despite these two decisive defeat, Mithradates had not been crushed and was now requesting peace. The two sides met at Dardanus where peace was agreed.

• Mithradates had to give up all his gains in Anatolia with Cappadocia, Bithynia and Paphlagonia getting their lands back.

• Mithradates had to give the Romans 80 warships

• Mithradates had to award the Romans 3000 talents.

• All deserters and Roman slaves taken by Mithradates were given back to Sulla

• Once this had all happened Mithradates would be considered an ally of Rome again.

Sulla’s men were outraged at these terms as they allowed a man who had killed 80,000 Romans in a day to get away with his life. Sulla had little time to worry about his men’s concerns as he was forced to deal with Marius’ army in Greece and take 40,000 recruits. One of these was supposedly a man named Spartacus, who would go on to lead a slave revolt in Rome. When Sulla returned to Rome he began to slaughter Marius’ men killing 18,000. Cassius Dio describes how Sulla’s behaviour ad even managed to surpass Mithradates’ massacre of 88BCE. As for the Pontic king, he chose to wait and recover his strength as he was not done with Rome yet. Mithradates’ skill of being able to bounce back was to prove very useful.

Before Mithradates was ready to resume the conflict with Rome, he would have to deal with domestic matters. Firstly, some of his northern vassals began to show discontent and requested that Mithradates’ eldest son, rather than Mithradates himself, to rule over them. Mithradates agreed and let his son become the king of Bosporous. The area then returned it’s loyalty to Mithradates.

He now worked on building up his army and navy to prepare for another war with Rome. After the defeats at Chaeronea and Orchomenus Mithradates decided that he could not rely on others to do his work for him and that he would have to lead from the front. Mithradates now began to study the great generals of the past and learnt the art of war.

After his humiliation at the hands of Sula and in fear of his life, Archelaus had chosen to defect to the Romans. He warned Murena, the governor of Asia, of Mithradates’ intentions and military build-up. Murena decided that he wanted to strike the first blow and catch the Pontic king off guard so invaded the kingdom through Cappadocia. Mithradates sent envoys to the senate to demand enforcement of the treaty of Dardanus. This was ignored so Mithradates sent Gordius to raid Asia Minor. Gordius met Murena at the Halys river. Both sides took defensive positions on each side of the river but then Mithradates himself showed up and Murena was soundly defeated.

Sulla ordered Murena to make peace with Mithradates. Mithradates’ prestige and confidence had been regained during the war and many of the other kingdoms in the area now looked up to him once more. The king still occupied part of Cappadocia so Sulla ordered him to retreat. Mithradates, who did not want war at this point, chose to oblige and gave the land back. Just as the situation started to calm, events in the capital were about to rock the stability in the Republic: Sulla was dead.

The death of Sulla gave Mithradates a huge confidence boost as he now believed that Rome was vulnerable. Again he began to build up his forces. By now, Mithradates had now realised the weaknesses of the Macedonian-style Phalanx and began removing this formation from his army. He also recruited rebellious Roman officers to begin training some of his men in the legionary style of Marius, as he now understood that the legionnaires were the best infantry of the time.

With his new-found confidence Mithradates yet again asked Tigranes to invade Cappadocia and this time he occupied the region. In Spain a Roman governor named Sertorius led a revolt that forced the senate to send a large part of their forces there. Mithradates quickly formed an alliance with Sertorius who sent advisers to aid Mithradates in his war.

Meanwhile in Bithynia in the year 74BCE Nicomedes IV was now dead and he had left one more surprise for Mithradates. He had given the whole of his kingdom to Rome. Mithradates knew he could not afford to allow the Romans to gain any more power in Anatolia so the king decided that war was now his only option. Thus began the third Mithradatic war.

In the same year one of Sulla’s favoured generals, Lucullus, was made consul with his co-consul Cotta appointed governor of Bithynia. The two came up with a plan to take on the Pontic king. Lucullus would be given command of the army that was made up of five veteran legions with 2,000 cavalry. Cotta was given command of the fleet and he began to build his navy at Chalcedon.

However, Mithradates acted quickly and blockaded the fleet and destroyed it. Cotta was forced to flee to Cyzicus with Mithradates right behind him.

Lucullus

The city of Cyzicus was able to hold out long enough to give Lucullus sufficient time to arrive and put pressure on Mithradates. Unfortunately for the Pontic king, Sertorius was now dead, which caused his Roman advisers to turn on him and they began to negotiate with Lucullus. They falsely told Mithradates to remove his guard preventing Lucullus from reaching his position as two of the Roman generals legions were ready to desert. This was false but Mithradates took the bait and continued his assaults on the city. The city still stood firm. Mithradates ordered his cavalry to return to Pontus in order to reduce the supplies his army was using. However, Lucullus was waiting for them and ambushed the cavalry as they were crossing a river. Surrounded and receiving no supplies from home the Pontic army began to starve. When the time was right, Lucullus crushed the Pontic army during its retreat.

Mithradates was forced to retreat, fighting Lucullus multiple times in his own kingdom with mixed results. Finally Mithradates had to flee to Armenia and Lucullus captured the capital of Sinope. Lucullus sent envoys to Mithradates’ son in Crimea asking him to betray his father and become an ally of Rome. The king agreed and Lucullus then demanded that Tigranes hand over Mithradates threatening invasion if the Armenian refused. Tigranes, who had a vast empire, believed he could take on Lucullus and began to gather his forces.

In 70 BCE both sides gathered forces and Lucullus began to stabilise the Roman control of Anatolia. The general had rallied an army of 35,000 infantry with 10,000 cavalry in support. Tigranes had a force of 80,000 at his disposal. However, Mithradates advised the king to avoid open battle but instead fight a guerilla war with the general.

Lucullus did not waste any time and in 69 BCE the general marched on Tigranes’ capital Tigranocerta and laid siege to it. Tigranes quickly arrived forcing Lucullus to call his forces back. Lucullus arrayed his forces in a single line with skirmishes in front, his legionnaires in the centre and cavalry and auxiliary infantry on the flanks. His initial plan was to charge the Armenian army and hope that the quick advance would prevent Tigranes’ superior archers from dealing too much damage to his infantry. However, at the last minute he changed his mind and ordered the advance to be halted. The general knew that the unit that posed the greatest threat to his army was Tigranes’ Cataphracts, who were the knights of the ancient world.

In a tactically brilliant move, Lucullus ordered the cavalry from both flanks to advance towards the Cataphracts who were on the Armenian right. Then they slowly retreated, luring the Armenian cavalry with them. Lucullus then lead his guard and a portion of his infantry in a huge flanking manoeuvre that would crash into the distracted Cataphracts and send them running. The plan worked and, luckily for the Romans, the heavy cavalry crashed into its own infantry causing panic that Lucullus took advantage of. His army charged and the Armenians were routed.

Mithradates, who had fled back into his own kingdom into the most mountainous regions, tried to resist the Romans with guerrilla tactics. Unluckily for him, the star general of the day, Pompey, now took command of the Roman forces. Lucullus was furious, feeling that Pompey had stolen his great victory over Rome’s greatest enemy. Pompey crushed Mithradates in a few decisive battles and Mithradates was left with only a few hundred followers.

Mithradates decided that his best course of action would be to try and convince one of his sons to allow him to hide in his kingdom. He led his followers up to Crimea slipping past Pompey’s forces and arrived at his son’s capital, only to be refused aid. With a small army, Mithradates managed to defeat his son and gained control of Colchis and Crimea. Mithradates wanted to continue the war with Rome but the populous refused. Meanwhile, in Armenia the Parthians had allied with Rome. These two giants of the time crushed Tigranes, Mithradates only significant ally, who was forced to give up most of his empire and become a Roman client.

The population of Pontus now chose to back Pharnaces who was Mithradates youngest son. Mithradates, with only a few followers, blockaded himself in his fortress. The king planned to flee to Scythia where he hoped to raise a force of Barbarians who would invade Italy directly and storm the gates of Rome. These hopes were put to an end when Mithradates’ fortress was surrounded and Pharnaces’ forces entered it.

Mithradates now turned to the vile of poison he kept on him for dire situations. The king first gave his two daughters the poison, which killed them instantly. Then he drank the rest. The quantity should have been sufficient to kill three men. However, Mithradates was not an ordinary man: a life time of building up his immunity meant he was unable to use poison to end his life. He asked his bodyguard to deal the final blow. The great king was no more.

To begin with, Pharnaces remained friendly with Rome. However, it seems that there was too much of his father in him. Towards the end of Caesar’s civil war, when the general was trapped in Egypt, Pharnaces took his chance and defeated the Roman governor at the battle of Nicopolis. The victory was not long lived: Caesar arrived and defeated the Pontic king at Zela and then famously said “Veni Vidi Vici’ or ‘ I came I saw I conquered.’ With this decisive defeat, Caesar deposed Pharnaces placing Mithradates of Pergamonon on the throne thus ending the dynasty of the great Pontic king.

During his long reign Mithradates proved time and time again that he was very ambitious and would stop at nothing to gain more power. From a very young age Mithradates showed merciless brutality when he killed his mother and his brother. Such behaviour was exhibited throughout his life when he chose to use horrific methods of despatching enemies even when not required. This is most evident during the execution of Aquillius, where Mithradates could have easily killed him in a much more humane way. Undoubtedly, his most ruthless action was the Asian Vespers, which is the best evidence of his do-what-mustbe-done policy. For all its barbarity, is was tactically a smart move from Mithradates as it was an excellent way of securing loyalty in his newly taken lands using fear as a tool. His reputation for ruthlessness and cruelty is also illustrated by the manner in which Archelaus fled, terrified Mithradates was going to murder him some way or another for his failures.

Mithradates clearly did use cruel and vicious methods to try to achieve control but it could be argued he had little choice. Further, while not the norm, such tactics would not have been considered as shocking then as such brutality and bloodshed would be viewed today .

The loss of his father was devastating for Mithradates as he was still very young and it was so unexpected. This shock was compounded by the manner in which his throne was taken from him immediately by his mother Mithradates was forced to leave home with nothing but his horse and a few belongings and friends giving up the life he was meant to live. Such a sudden change in his fortunes would have made a huge impact on a young man. This would explain the hatred for and the apparent ease with which Mithradates killed his mother, as she had taken everything from him and his future.

The growth of Mithradates’ Empire

The Romans took the lands that his father had won for his kingdom and so breaking promises after having received generous aid from Pontus. This helped to instil a hatred of the Republic in the young ruler. Mithradates understood well how the Romans slowly enslaved peoples and he realised that his kingdom, along with his neighbours, would be next This shows Mithradates was astute and was able to see the bigger picture. However, he paid a huge price for this vendetta. He lost his son and preferred heir campaigning against the Romans and eventually his other son turned on him and so Mithradates was forced into taking his own life. Despite ultimately ending in personal failure for Mithradates, what is remarkable is the length of his reign and difficulties he created for the far more powerful Roman republic.

Perhaps most admirable about Mithradates is his perseverance. He had an incredible ability to bounce back and get back up after being knocked down time and time again After losing his throne to his mother he did not just stay in hiding; even with the limited forces he had at the time he was still able to gain the support of the people and take the throne back.

Despite two humiliating defeats at the hands of Sulla, Mithradates was still able to negotiate a decent treaty and returned to fight another day. Part of this comes down to Mithradates’ excellent ability to plan and regroup. The savviness he displayed in acquiring a monopoly over Black Sea trade meant he was still able to afford huge armies even after losing so much territory and so many men after the first Mithradatic war. However, the best example of Mithradates’ ability to bounce back is after being betrayed by his son and losing his kingdom during the Third Mithradatic war.

Even with only a few hundred followers Mithradates was still able to use his popularity and support from his people to retake his throne in Crimea despite impossible odds. Such talent makes him comparable to a classic Homeric hero from myth. One imagines that even Mithradates’ biggest enemies must have had a degree respect for the fortitude he displayed in never giving up. Further, the achievements of Pontus were all the more notable given its size at the beginning of Mithradates’ reign.

The odds that Mithradates had to face were quite astonishing. Although Rome during the first century BCE had experienced a lot of civil wars and invasions, it was still by far the largest empire at the time and it dwarfed Mithradates’ Pontic kingdom. Not only was his opponent huge in size, the Roman republic had some of the best generals of the ancient world. Sulla, Lucullus and Pompey were all tactically brilliant and, other than Caesar and Alexander the Great, generals probably did not have an equal. Despite seemingly impossible opponents, Mithradates put up far more of a fight than the other Hellenic kingdoms.

The Seleucid empire, which was larger than Rome during it defeat to the republic, barely put up a fight after the decisive defeat at Magnesia. On the other hand, Mithradates fought against the Romans for 30 years and would have come close to defeating the republic completely had he won the battle of Chaerona. His perfect timing and his tactical genius meant he was able to take on the republic. Plus, his determination kept him going even at the darkest times.

Mithradates’ ruthlessness was the product of his ambition: he understood that to defeat Rome he would have to do whatever was necessary, no matter the cruelty or human cost Despite this deserved reputation for ruthlessness and barbarity, Mithradates was also the true definition of a hero as he overcame impossible odds. Although ultimately he failed in his ambition to recreate the empire of his hero Alexander, his intelligence, tactical skill and determination is something to be admired.

Bibliography

• ‘The Poison King’ Adrienne Mayor

• ‘Mithradates the great’ Philip Matyszak

• Kings and Generals You tube series on The Mithradatic wars

• Livius.org

• World history Encyclopaedia

• Roman Historian Julian.

• ‘The king who tried to become immune to poison- It didn’t work’ By Andrew Pourciaux.

• Imperium Romanum’s ‘Rome wars with Mithradates’

• The Invicta You tube video on ‘Mithradates and the Black Sea empire’

• Kings and generals video on the ‘Cimbrian Wars’

• Greek historian Appian. “The Mithradatic Wars’

• Mary Beards book on ‘Pompeii

• Plutarch

• Cassius Dio

• Historyofwar – The Third Mithradatic war.

Introduction to Africa

- Africa is the second largest continent in the world, behind Asia in terms of size.

- With an immense Eleven-Million Seven Hundred THOUSAND square miles Africa is brimming with culture and teeming with life both in the wild and mankind.

- Its largest city is Cairo, Egypt which is the home for 9.2 million people and Africa also houses the magnificent Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania which rises to a height of 5895 metres above sea level, which is only 2950 metres shorter than Mount Everest!

- The African continent has approximately 3,000 distinct ethnic groups while Nigeria alone has about 370 of these tribes that have been officially recognised.

- Around 2,000 different languages are spoken in Africa and each of them have different dialects while Arabic is the language that is most widely spoken in the African continent.

- Africa also boasts of having the longest river in the world which is the Nile that runs for around 4,150 miles before it meets the ocean. It flows through several African countries such as Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda as well as Egypt thus making the land extremely fertile.

- There are 54 countries in Africa, plus 4 territories which remain from the time Africa was first colonised, which started from the 15th Century onwards but really took a big turn when the scramble for Africa started known as ‘New Imperialism’ between 1881 and 1914.

Territories in Africa and disputes.

- The four territories are Mayotte and Réunion, which both belong to France; Saint Helena, a territory of the UK; and finally, Western Sahara, although the governing country of this area is disputed. It was a former Spanish Colony, then got annexed by Morocco in 1975. However, in 1976 the Polisario front proclaimed the Saharan Arab Democratic Front (SADR) with a government in exile in Algeria.

- So what would have happened if Spain hadn’t left Western Sahara?

- I happened to come across a really good article by Classroom Synonym of the Leaf Group which summed up the advantages and disadvantages of colonialism (particularly in Africa) perfectly.

- The article discusses how Western Civilisations benefitted the Health and Education of the largely poor and uneducated population. However, the article does make a good point stating, ‘the inhabitants often lacked immunity to the pathogens the colonisers also brought from their home countries. Indigenous populations fell to plagues including smallpox, influenza and other viruses that hadn't existed within their county prior to colonisation.’

- Unfortunately, health and education was practically the only positive things about colonialism the article had to offer. It discusses political strife, how ethnic groups were forced to work for a cause they’d been dragged into, and how many territories were driven to Civil War.

- In the section about Plantation Mentality, the writer tells us how colonial powers tended to exploit the crops and goods of the land they took over, ‘often with little regard to helping the people native to the area.’

- And finally, there was a real hard-hitting factor about the negatives of colonialism in the Final Section titled ‘Traditions Lost’. ‘During the colonial era, many European colonisers, such as Great Britain, took a paternalistic view of the native culture. They saw themselves as acting in the best interests of these people, bringing them Christianity and civilisation. This attitude destroyed traditional beliefs and social values, however, and had a negative effect on colonised populations’ And so on.

- Now, what is the article trying to say? That the cons outweigh the pros? Is this probably true? Did the so-called ‘pros’ even matter in comparison to the ‘cons’?

- Now while all these points are good and well, some specific facts and pointers would be really great for me to come to a conclusion. That’s why discussing a particular country that had been colonised would be particularly great!

Case Study: Nigeria

Introduction and Chronology

- In preparation for this case study I read three really gripping and interesting books all based on the history of Nigeria, while one of three focuses mainly on what Britain did to Nigeria. In the book ‘A history of Nigeria’ by Toyin Falola and Matthew M. Heaton there is a really good chronology at the start of it that outlines key events in the evolution of modern day Nigeria. I would like to briefly summarise some of these points:

- 1807 was the British abolition of the slave trade in Nigeria, although ‘the trade in slaves continues from Southern Nigerian ports for another forty years’.

- 1833 Marks the Final collapse of the Oyo Empire, marking the beginning of sixty years of instability and war between Yoruba States and southwest.

- 1841 The Niger expedition is the first outreach of Christians to the interior of Nigeria.

- 1861 The British annexation of Lagos as a Crown Colony.

- 1886 Formation of the Royal Niger Company and a peace treaty is signed that ends ‘the prolonged war among the Yoruba-speaking peoples of the southwest.

- 1893 ‘Establishment of a British protectorate over Yoruba territories in the southwest.

- 1903 British forces conquer the Sokoto Caliphate and kill the Sultan

- 1914-1918 Nigerian troops aid the British cause in World War One.

- 1923 Clifford Constitution allows for elected representation in the governance of Nigeria for the first time.

- 1929 The ‘Women’s War’ or Aba Riots were major protests against British indirect rule in southeastern Nigeria.

- 1944 ‘Nnamdi Azikiwe founds the NCNC, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (later Nigerian citizens), which quickly becomes an influential political party pushing for independence for Nigeria from British colonial rule.

- 1945 ‘Nigerian labour unions organise a General Strike, bringing work and business to a standstill.

- 1946 The Richards Constitution divides Nigeria into North, West and East. ‘This is the first set of constitutional reforms that ultimately leads to independence for Nigeria.

- 1951 ‘The MacPherson Constitution amends the Richards Constitution, moving Nigeria closer to independence.’

- 1954 Thanks to the Lyttleton Constitution, a federal system of government is established in Nigeria.

- 1957 ‘Regional self-government attained in the East and West’.

- 1959 ‘Regional self-government attained in the North.

- Finally in 1960, Nigeria becomes independent from the United Kingdom on October 1 and also ‘becomes a republic, replacing the queen with an indigenous president as the symbolic head of state’ in 1963.

- Although the timeline expands before and after these events described, and I have missed some events in between, I do not think that they were as relevant to the subject matter.

Case Study: Nigeria

‘What Britain did to Nigeria’

- I really looked forward to scripting this last section, as I use my favourite of the three books, ‘What Britain did to Nigeria’ by Max Siollun, to try and come ever closer to my conclusion. Because up until now, I was mostly in the grey for whether or not, Colonialism was good in Africa. For although the cons appeared to outweigh the pros, we cannot forget, that if it weren’t for the west crashing into Africa, a lot of the population would still be in tribes, civil wars breaking out more often and a very grim atmosphere would be emanating from Africa today. Why, I probably wouldn’t be scripting and making this project today! It’s just like the Roman invasion of Britain which started in AD 43! The Romans brought order, sanitation and education to the Brits. And eventually, the United Kingdom would morph into its prosperous and privileged state it’s in today! (Which we cannot deny!)

- So are there hopes and dreams for Africans? Will the continent, see a better light of day?

- I would like to address the subject matter with the masterpiece of a book mentioned before by Max

Siollun

- ‘What Britain did to Nigeria’ is a well-structured, well written informative book with conviction about everything put in it. Even the subheading on the blurb reads: ‘An exposé of the British Empire’s shameful impact on Africa’s most populous state.’

- Immediately the reader gets interested, writing against the British accounts of Colonisation in Nigeria, and saying: ‘Thanks to this skewed writing of history, many Nigerians today still have Empire nostalgia and view the colonial period through rose-tinted glasses.’ But Max ‘offers a bold rethink’

- He splits the book into five main sections of: - The pre colonial era, Extraction and Trade, Invasion and War, Resistance and finally Cultural, Political and Religious Changes. Each section provides head-on facts and evidence of how the British have affected Modern-day Nigeria. My favourite of these is a story of ‘Glover’s Hausas’.

- The Hausas are an ethnic tribe in Nigeria, most who take refuge up North, and with their main religion being Islam.

Case Study: Nigeria

Glover’s Hausas

‘In 1858, while on expedition on the River Niger, a British ship named the Dayspring struck a rock and sank near Jebba’. ‘One of the shipwrecked crew, a British officer named Lt. John Hawley Glover….travelled overland to Lagos in the south to bring back help and supplies to his colleagues.’ Glover then brought Hausa slaves back with him on his journey back to Jebba.

- Glover had ordered a Hausa servant, Sami, to recruit others for the journey back. Thus approximately 200 slaves end up escaping their masters to join the expedition.

- Inevitably though, some slaves were owned by powerful and wealthy slave owners such as Oba Dosunmu and Madam Efunroye Tinubu. A fight broke out between the slave owners who tried to retrieve their slaves by force and the slaves themselves.

- During the battle, Glover was impressed by how readily and precisely his Hausa escorts carried out his orders to lay down their loads and kneel beside them in a circular formation if they were attacked.’ ‘Glover formed the impression that the Hausas would one day make good soldiers’.

- Eventually, the Hausas would become known as the martial race of Nigeria. These would cause complications in the future.

- The mostly-Hausa escort that belonged to Glover would morph into the army to fight their own people, and then the auxiliary police force, before finally the Military Government from 1966–1979. Most of whom were Hausa Northerners. They felt that due to the legacy left by the Brits of the Hausas being the martial race they had a right, no, need to be the heads of state. And since then, the fight for presidency and power has left Nigerian politics broken ever since.

- And these are just one, of the many examples in the book, but one of the most important!

Conclusion

- However, I must come to a conclusion, or what would be the point of wasting all these 40/50 hours?

- From all that I’ve gathered, all that I’ve read I think that it is fair to say colonialism and imperialism was not the greatest event in history for all peoples. It benefited some, put others down. Some put down worse than others.

- We have been taught valuable lessons, like how all peoples are equal and deserve equal rights and chances in society.

- We’ve also learnt that interdependence and interconnectedness can help us boost each other rather than one using the other as a footstool.

- I say that it’s all dependent on you. I personally feel that there have been some positives that have come out of those troubling times. It’s because of those struggles long ago that we are learning more about each other. That I, a black person, am privileged to go to a prosperous school in a prosperous country and able to interact with people from all over the globe.

- The British interest in Nigeria, meant that I have many open doors today. We mustn’t hide away from the clear-cut evidence, that good can come out of bad.

- For after a storm always comes a rainbow.

1. https://www.worldometers.info/geography/how-many-countries-in-africa/

2. https://www.victoriafalls-guide.net/facts-about-africa.html

3. https://www.gvi.co.uk/blog/mount-kilimanjaro-facts-what-you-need-to-know-about-africashighest-peak/?gvi_source=google&gvi_medium=organic&gvi_date=20220328#

4. https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191737589.timeline.0001

5. https://www.britannica.com/topic/NewImperialism#:~:text=Following%20the%20opening%20of%20the,balance%20of%20power%2 0was%20over

6. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa14115273#:~:text=Western%20Sahara%20is%20a%20sparsely,led%20by%20the%20Polisari o%20Front

7. https://classroom.synonym.com/positive-negative-effects-of-colonialism-12083796.html

Image credits

1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2a/Boko_Haram_logo_%282002%E2%80%93 15%29.png - Wikipedia

2. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/HjFE8NKWuCmgfHCcndJ3rK.jpg - Live Science

3. https://cdn.britannica.com/33/153433-050-F76BDF75/Sunrise-Mount-KilimanjaroTanzania.jpg - Britannica

4. https://www.history.com/.image/ar_16:9%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_faces :center%2Cq_auto:good%2Cw_768/MTgyMzgzODY0NDk1MjIwMDQw/nile-rivergettyimages-1161692416.jpg - History.com

5. https://www.nile-cruise-egypt.com/Images/River-Nile-Map.jpg - Nile Cruise Egypt

6. https://www.worldatlas.com/r/w1200/upload/d5/95/3f/southern-africa-map.png - World Atlas

7. https://dynamic-media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-o/0f/dd/75/d1/kbc-dakhla-vomhotel.jpg?w=700&h=500&s=1 - Trip Advisor

8. https://www.worldwidewendy.be/upload/Ile%20de%20la%20Reunion.jpg – World Wide Wendy

9. https://www.vanilla-islands.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/mayotte-lagon.jpg - VanillaIslands.org

10. https://media.cntraveler.com/photos/5c8a5f5b8295a72d4c473b4f/master/w_4000,h_2000, c_limit/Mantis-St-Helena_Des-Jacobs_2019_IMG_9127-Panorama.jpg - Condé Nast Traveler.

11. https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4e babms.cloudfront.net%2Fproduction%2F614e3842-ca9a-40d1-b9a33bde7d087b7a_FINAL.jpg?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=700 – Financial Times

12. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Seal_of_Polisario_Front.png - Wikipedia

13. https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Nigeria-Toyin-Falola/dp/052168157X - Amazon

14. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Histories-Dirt-Media-Colonial-Postcolonial/dp/1478006439Amazon

15. https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Britain-Did-NigeriaConquest/dp/1787383849/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=109347721870&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI66vbuY n99gIVSOvtCh3SPQQoEAAYASAAEgKte_D_BwE&hvadid=452213713180&hvdev=t&hvlocphy =1007190&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=15021589308488037748&hvtargid=kwd941527629599&hydadcr=24434_1816120&keywords=what+britain+did+to+nigeria&qid=16 49166902&sr=8-1 – Amazon

16. https://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Nigeria-Toyin-Falola/dp/052168157X - Amazon

17. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Alaafin_Oyo_c._1910__Colorized.jpg - Wikipedia

18. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Exeter_Hall_meeting_of_1_June_1 840.jpg - Wikipedia

19. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Flag_of_Lagos_Colony_%28 1888%E2%80%931906%29.svg/2560pxFlag_of_Lagos_Colony_%281888%E2%80%931906%29.svg.png – Wikipedia

20. https://cdn.face2faceafrica.com/www/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/ss.jpg - Face2Face Africa

21. https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205087895 - Imperial War Museums

22. https://guardian.ng/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Abas-Women-Riot.-Photo-Spillwords.jpg - Guardian Nigeria

23. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eegnv10WAAIK3my?format=jpg&name=900x900@mbeatowe on Twitter

24. https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/800/cpsprodpb/0277/production/_109713600_zik.jpg.webp –BBC News Igbo

25. https://www.kofastudy.com/kike_content/uploads/2021/04/676px-Nigeria_1960-19631.png - Kofa Study

26. https://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Britain-Did-NigeriaConquest/dp/1787383849/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=109347721870&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI66vbuY n99gIVSOvtCh3SPQQoEAAYASAAEgKte_D_BwE&hvadid=452213713180&hvdev=t&hvlocphy =1007190&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=15021589308488037748&hvtargid=kwd941527629599&hydadcr=24434_1816120&keywords=what+britain+did+to+nigeria&qid=16 49166902&sr=8-1 – Amazon

27. https://images.emojiterra.com/twitter/v14.0/128px/1f914.png - Emojiterra

28. https://image.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/golden-scale-isolated-on-white-600w635836577.jpg - Shutterstock

29. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/africa-fire-4411774.jpg - Dreamstime

30. https://media.istockphoto.com/illustrations/invasion-of-britain-by-julius-caesar-illustrationid1160222979?s=612x612 – iStock

31. https://www.romanbaths.co.uk/sites/roman_baths/files/dsc8009-hdr.jpg - Roman Baths.co.uk

32. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Sir_John_Hawley_Glover_%2818291885%29.jpg – Wikipedia

33. https://miro.medium.com/max/938/1*C7mwW5gKIlJ0ONgmBS4DIQ.jpeg – Medium.com

34. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Emir_Of_Muri_Alh_Abbas_Tafida.j pg - Wikipedia

35. https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/Uploads/ImageLibrary/Active/2016June/A_water_im ages/Screenshot%202020-12-11%20at%2010.39.35.png – Water Power Magazine

36. https://s26162.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/07/lagos-slider-960x430.jpgCrimeReads

37. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJ9xJ8PXUAAZNSp?format=png&name=medium@YorubaHistory on Twitter

38. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Efunroye_Tinubu2.jpg - Wikipedia

39. Opera News Nigeria

40. Wikipedia

41. https://african.business/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/05/000_1o078x.jpg - African Business

42. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/07/14/10/4E3A7BE600000578-0-image-a63_1531560414518.jpg - Daily Mail

43. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Flag_of_Nigeria_%281914% E2%80%931952%29.svg/2560px-Flag_of_Nigeria_%281914%E2%80%931952%29.svg.png –Wikipedia

44. https://static.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2018/10/iStock-690832918-640x400.jpgTimes of Israel