Enjoy the Ride

Do Gun Laws Apply to Gun Control Organizations in New Mexico?

The Pope Cannot Overrule God

Whipped ricotta cheese is always a delight‚ but whipping it by hand can be a hassle. Use a food processor to ensure smooth‚ consistent results every time.

from We Are Change:  TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Martin Armstrong‚ Armstrong Economics: Our computer has forecasted this for post-2032: there will be a sharp population decline‚ which was perhaps Gates’ agenda all along. He is following in his father’s footsteps‚ convinced he has to do everything to reduce the population. His father did that by creating Planned Parenthood‚ convincing women it was […]

by Stefan Stanford‚ All News Pipeline: – With ‘Friends’ Like This‚ Who Needs ‘Enemies’? In another sign that Americans are slowly‚ and thankfully‚ awakening‚ the CDC just this past Thursday put out an ’emergency health advisory’ claiming an ‘urgent need’ to ‘Increase Immunization Coverage for Influenza‚ COVID-19 and RSV‚’ warning that low vaccination rates “could lead to more severe disease and increased healthcare […]

  We can define Greek hoplites as the wealthy citizen-soldiers of the ancient Greek city-states‚ men who were armed with spears and shields. They are famous for the Phalanx (in Greek‚ line of battle‚ battle array) formation. Their appearance during the 5th century BCE marked the beginning of a new chapter in the history of the Greek States. The constant stasis of the Greek states ended due to the threat of the Persian empire‚ and the Greeks had to evolve to survive. Below‚ we will accompany‚ in spirit‚ a hypothetical Athenian Greek hoplite for a full day of warfare.   What were the Greek Hoplites? Chigi vase‚ 6th century BCE‚ via‚ via joshobrouwers.com   The word “Hoplite” comes from “ὅπλον” — hóplon — meaning arms‚ armor‚ a weapon. They were military units within the Greek city states’ armies‚ which were ranked by wealth and mainly composed of peasant farmers prosperous enough to equip themselves as heavy infantry. They won their first battle in the 5th-century BCE‚ when they defeated the Persian invaders. In Athens‚ Hoplites were part-timers with little or no formal military training who had to abandon their civilian occupation and present themselves for service whenever the state required. By contrast‚ Sparta was a militarized state.   Tools of the Hoplite Trade A Phalanx‚ by Fallow Deer Painter‚ ca. 560 BCE‚ via Hellenica World   There was no official uniform or standardized equipment‚ and the appearance of a hoplite would vary from man to man. The panoply — meaning “all arms” — was expensive. Armor and weapons were almost certainly passed down the family line and replaced only when necessary.   For protection‚ hoplites wore a bronze helmet (kranos)‚ a pair of bronze shinguards (knimis)‚ and a cuirass‚ a torso protector made from bronze or even layers of linen glued together. Furthermore‚ he used a shield (aspis) constructed from wood and sometimes covered with a thin sheet of bronze‚ on the outer surface and around the rim. He would hold the aspis by the grip (antilabe) found on the shield’s edge.   In combat‚ a hoplite would use an iron-tipped spear (dory) for killing blows with an overhand or underhand thrust. Due to its length (6 to 9 feet)‚ it served as the first line of attack. It had a leaf-shaped spearhead and a spike at the back which was used if the spearhead broke or if a soldier needed to finish an enemy who’d fallen to the ground.   For close quarters‚ the hoplite relied on a variety of edged weapons to cut‚ stab‚ and slash his adversaries. One example was a double-edged‚ one-handed sword (xiphos) employed when the dory was unavailable. The classic blade length was generally 20 to 24 inches‚ although the Spartans supposedly used blades as short as 12 inches during the Greco-Roman Wars.   The Road to War The farewell scene of a warrior departing to battle‚ black figure vase‚ ca 540 – 530 BCE‚ via Kallos Gallery   When they were not fighting‚ hoplites had normal jobs and occupations the same as other Greek citizens. On discovering he was mobilized‚ the hoplite would return home and prepare his gear. The mobilization order would usually say how much food was required for the campaign. These provisions included salt‚ onions‚ and salt fish. Part of their equipment and food was stored in wagons attended by a personal baggage carrier (skemophoroi)‚ who could be either a slave or a younger relative. Besides food and gear‚ the skemophoroi would carry bedding and personal kits‚ gather firewood‚ forage‚ and prepare meals.   After reaching the military camp and sleeping‚ our hoplite would wake and prepare for the Ariston (breakfast). Here‚ generals discussed the final preparations for the upcoming battle. Besides breakfast‚ the Greek army also had dinner (deipnon)‚ an evening meal. Battles were fought in the middle of the day after both sides ate their ariston. Some would sip a bit of wine before fighting to calm their nerves.   After breakfast‚ the army marched out to draw up the line of battle‚ but old soldiers remained in the camp. The primary military formation was the famous phalanx. Its importance lay in the cohesion of the whole unit. Each man’s survival was dependent upon his comrade’s actions: shields had to overlap‚ stragglers had to be urged forward‚ and men needed to protect one another. Yet‚ for this to function‚ hoplites also had to be motivated to protect their peers.   The Advance Amphora depicting Hoplite Race‚ ca 5th BCE‚ via Eagles and Dragon Publishing   The advance (ephodos) and charge (epidrome) were the most significant moments of the battle. Like other experienced soldiers‚ our hoplite would stay in front of others‚ and they had to keep the formation in check. It is important to note that the Phalanx could be deployed only on plains because crossing water would disrupt the battle formation. The Spartans initiated the custom of singing a war song (paean) as they marched forward‚ a habit eventually adopted by most Greek soldiers. Singing helped men cope with the desperate feeling of vulnerability as the shock of collision with the enemy approached.   Thucydides recorded how an advancing phalanx tended to drift to the right since “fear makes every man want to do his best to find protection for his unarmed side in the shield of the man next to him on the right‚ thinking that the more closely the shields are locked together‚ the safer he will be.”    The general had to give the order at the right time. If he did it too late‚ there was no momentum‚ and if he was too early‚ the formation would end up in disarray and lose energy and cohesion. After the signal‚ at a certain distance from the enemy‚ the hoplites would break into a run‚ charging forward while emitting a high-pitched war cry (“eleleu‚” according to Aristophanes).   Fighting: Ancient Greek Edition The Macmillan Aryballos‚ ca 640 BCE‚ via Hoplites.org   Our hoplite and his brothers-in-arms clashed with the enemy and their phalanx. Shield to shield‚ the hoplites in the front ranks began thrusting with their spears through the gaps in the enemy shield wall. Those in the rear ranks supported them by pushing forward those in the front with their shields.   After the initial clash‚ the fighting itself took place in two phases. During the spear fight (dorastimos)‚ those experienced would target the undefended parts above and below the shield by jabbing rapidly and repeatedly with their spear. Often spears would shatter after the initial clash‚ forcing the hoplite to turn to his sword‚ which represents the second phase of the fighting.   Hoplites were motivated to fight for their kin back home. In the army‚ members of the same parish served in the same company. Specifically‚ there were many fathers and sons or nephews and uncles in a unit. Abandoning the battle meant shame‚ and if a soldier deserted‚ he would be reminded of it by all of his relatives or neighbors all his life.   Greek Hoplite‚ by Johnny Shumate‚ via World History Encyclopedia   At some point in this struggle‚ one part of a phalanx would collapse under the pressure of the attack. If an army broke‚ not everyone ran. An example worthy of mentioning is the case of Socrates at the Battle of Delion. After the phalanx broke‚ he gathered the remaining troops‚ organized a steady retreat‚ and saved the life of Alcibiades.   The results of a broken army could be devastating. Routing troops were‚ in many cases‚ slaughtered by the enemy. As a result‚ the casualties were disproportionately large. In Athens‚ fleeing troops were called “shield-flingers” (rhipsaspis) because they usually threw first their shield‚ and then their weapons to escape quickly. If our hoplite and his army won the battle‚ they still had to keep formation and chase the enemy‚ who might have been successful on the other side of the battlefield.   The Aftermath of the Battle for the Greek Hoplite Illustration of the Sacred Band of Thebes‚ via the History Collection   Statistically‚ the casualties on the winning side were typically around five percent‚ including a relatively high percentage of the hoplites in the front lines — the men actively engaged in the fighting. On the losing side‚ casualties would probably mount to around 15 percent of the soldiers on the field.   After our hoplite won the battle and returned from the pursuit‚ two things happened. The wounded were taken care of‚ and the dead gathered. After‚ the winning side stripped the enemy bodies of armor‚ weapons‚ and jewelry. Loot was pooled‚ and generals dedicated a tenth of the loot to a particular god for victory. The rest was auctioned off to raise money for the state or divided among the troops.   Memorials of the battle (created from the gear of the defeated) were raised in key locations on the battlefield‚ like where the army turned the tide in their favor. The defeated city-state would send a herald to break a truce to bury the dead. Traditionally‚ this was a symbolic admission of defeat.

  Socrates is one of the most influential figures in Western thought‚ and his teachings have impacted a wide range of philosophers and fields. Some of his most well-known beliefs are about wisdom. He believed that wisdom was essential to virtue and living a good life. The importance he placed on wisdom shaped his legacy and even caused the Oracle of Delphi to proclaim him the wisest man.    Socrates Was an Ancient Philosopher Socrates‚ Lysippos‚ 1st Century CE   Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates was active during the fifth century BCE. His thinkings centered largely around ethics and morality‚ and he spent most of his time asking questions about wisdom‚ virtue‚ and justice. Perhaps his most well-known contribution was his method of teaching‚ known as the Socratic method. In this format‚ he asked his students questions and focused more on the thinking behind their answers rather than right or wrong. Unfortunately‚ his works challenged the status quo of his times‚ and ultimately‚ Socrates was executed.    Although he left a lasting legacy on Western philosophy‚ unlike other philosophers‚ Socrates didn’t leave any written records of his teachings. In fact‚ most of what is known about the great thinker comes from his students‚ especially Plato‚ who wrote extensively about him in his dialogues.    He Taught Other Philosophers Like Plato A full statue of Socrates by Leonidas Drosis‚ 19th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Plato was another influential philosopher. He studied with Socrates and became known for his theory of forms‚ cave allegory‚ and idea of a philosopher-king. He even began teaching his own students after opening his Academy in Athens‚ one of the earliest higher education institutions in the Western world. It was such a well-renowned school that other great philosophers‚ such as Aristotle‚ went there to learn. Plato’s teachings were diverse and have gone on to influence a variety of philosophical branches‚ such as ethics‚ metaphysics‚ and epistemology.    His most enduring written works are his dialogues‚ where most modern-day knowledge of Socrates comes from. While Plato’s dialogues were not word-for-word quotations of real conversations‚ the literary works were Plato’s way of using Socrates as a character to explore philosophical concepts. One of these dialogues — Apology — describes Socrates in conversation with the Oracles of Delphi.    Socrates Sought Out the Oracle of Delphi The Oracle‚ Biacca Camillo Miola‚ 1880. Source: J. Paul Getty Museum   The Oracle of Delphi was a priestess in Ancient Greece. Also known as the Pythia‚ she was a channel through which the Greek god Apollo communicated his prophecies. The Oracle was highly sought after‚ and she appears in many famous myths— from Hercules and his twelve labors to Paris and the Trojan War. Her influence hit its height during the classical period‚ between the sixth and fourth centuries BCE‚ the same period when Plato wrote his dialogues. It makes sense‚ then‚ that Socrates would feature in a tale with the famed prophetess.    Like other characters in his dialogues‚ Plato used the Oracle of Delphi to prompt questions and answers. When it comes to her interaction with Socrates‚ the Oracle of Delphi was a conduit to facilitate discussions about wisdom.    Socrates Didn’t Believe He Was the Wisest Reconstruction of the Sanctuary of Apollo at Delphi‚ Albert Tournaire‚ 1894. Source: Wikipedia   One of the greatest quests philosophers have embarked on — metaphorically speaking — is the quest for true wisdom. And for Socrates‚ continuous searching for wisdom was essential to living a good life. In the work Apology‚ Plato writes that Socrates visited the Oracle of Delphi to ask if there was anyone wiser than him‚ and she responds that there is no one wiser. This seemed false for Socrates‚ who was humble and modest regarding his intelligence. To better understand the Oracle’s response‚ Socrates set out to find someone wiser than himself.   He determined that anyone who knew what was worthwhile in life would be the wisest‚ but the more people he spoke with‚ the more he realized that no one had a good answer; everyone just pretended to. This‚ he realized‚ was why the Oracle proclaimed him the wisest. Only Socrates could admit that he didn’t know.    The Key to Wisdom Is Humility The Thinker‚ Auguste Rodin‚ 1880. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art   When the Oracle of Delphi called Socrates the wisest man‚ it was not because he knew the most or had the highest IQ. Socrates thought himself to be a smart man‚ for sure‚ but he understood his limits. In fact‚ his question-and-answer discussional method of teaching was designed to expose the contradictions and inconsistencies in people’s beliefs‚ including his own. Acknowledging his faults led the Oracle of Delphi to say he was the wisest.    Socrates knew he didn’t know everything and was willing to admit it. His humble approach to wisdom set him apart from others‚ leading to a famous Socratic paradox that influenced philosophy in Ancient Greece and beyond: “I know that I am intelligent because I know that I know nothing.”

  The Mithridatic Wars pitched the Roman Republic against the Kingdom of Pontus in the early decades of the 1st century BCE. At stake was Rome’s control of the eastern provinces and their fabulous wealth‚ and the Pontic King Mithridates was to prove a consistently canny foe… But from the bloodshed and violence‚ some of the Roman Republic’s most towering figures would build their fortunes and legacies‚ making the Mithridatic Wars some of the most important in the ancient world.   Rome’s Rivals in the East: The Kingdom of Pontus Portrait of Mithridates VI Eupator‚ King of Pontus‚ as Herakles‚ marble copy of a bronze original‚ ca. 1st century CE. Source Musee du Louvre   The Pontic Kingdom was a melting pot‚ combining Persian and Greek cultural influences. It had been originally founded in 281 BCE by Mithridates I Ktistes (“the Builder”)‚ who was of Persian origins like many of the inhabitants of the territory he now claimed as his own. However‚ much of the territory that would be integrated into the kingdom was decidedly Greek; Hellenic colonists had been exploring and settling along the coast of the Black Sea for quite some time.   In effect‚ Mithridates’ kingdom was one of several in Asia Minor that emerged from weakening Seleucid control in the region. The kingdom would be ruled by this hereditary dynasty for its entire duration‚ with security helped by marriage alliances with the neighboring Seleucids. Territory was added over time‚ with Mithridates VI Eupator (132-63 BCE) adding Colchis (roughly‚ modern Georgia)‚ and the Bosporan Kingdom (the modern Crimea)‚ expanding the kingdom to its territorial extent.   Now a significant power in the eastern Mediterranean‚ the ambitious Mithridates VI sought to consolidate his control in the region. This put the Kingdom of Pontus on a collision course with the ancient Mediterranean’s other principal power‚ the Roman Republic…   Chaos and Cappadocia: Prelude to the First Mithridatic War Silver coin of Tigranes the Great‚ King of Armenia‚ minted at Antiochia ad Orontem‚ 1st century BCE. Source British Museum   As Mithridates VI sought to consolidate his power in Asia Minor‚ his territorial aspirations brought him into direct confrontation with regions that were allies of Rome. Many of the states that neighboured the Pontic Kingdom were actually client states‚ ruled by kings whose authority derived from Roman support. If the Romans had an aversion to kingly rule themselves‚ they certainly did not shy away from the role of kingmaker. The spark for war came with Mithridates’ seizure of Cappadocia from Nicomedes III of Bithynia and his replacement of the region’s ruler with his son-in-law‚ Tigranes the Great‚ king of Armenia.   Silver tetradrachm of Nicomedes III‚ with obverse portrait of his father (Nicomedes II) and reverse depiction of Zeus Stratios‚ minted in Bithynia‚ 1st century BCE. Source British Museum   At the same time as the Republic was becoming increasingly invested in the geopolitics of the eastern Mediterranean‚ the Romans were also fighting the so-called Social War on the Italian peninsula. Aggrieved by various Roman abuses‚ former Italian allies of Rome (the socii) rebelled in 91 BCE. Despite the severity of the situation‚ Rome nevertheless dispatched agents to the east to attempt to bring Mithridates to heel. They did so in a remarkable way. To secure Roman support for his restoration‚ Nicomedes had taken out huge loans. Now‚ with the pressure to repay his debts‚ Nicomedes was pressured by the Romans to invade Pontic territory.   The historian‚ Appian‚ describes how Mithridates used the Roman peer pressure of Nicomedes to his advantage. Pressed into invading Mithridates’ kingdom‚ Nicomedes and his forces sacked as far as the city of Amastris. The lack of opposition was contrived by the Pontic king‚ however‚ who knew full well that the invasion of his kingdom gave him ample justification for declaring war. In the summer of 89 BCE‚ Mithridates ordered his son‚ Ariarathes‚ to retake Cappadocia. The First Mithridatic War had begun.   Pontic Power: The Massacre of the Romans Tetradrachm of Mithridates VI Eupator with obverse portrait of the king‚ minted in Pontus‚ 76-75 BCE. Source British Museum   The Pontic re-occupation of Cappadocia was perceived by the Roman Senate as the final straw: Mithridates must be removed from power to ensure Rome’s pre-eminence in Asia. Fortunately‚ by this time‚ the Social War was drawing to a close‚ so the Republic had a ready supply of battle-hardened troops to release into the eastern theatre. Unfortunately‚ before they could arrive‚ Mithridates’ forces marched quickly. First‚ Nicomedes was defeated‚ and then a Roman force led by Manius Aquilius smashed in Bithynia‚ prompting another Roman force to withdraw to Greece. Roman rule in Asia had collapsed with remarkable speed‚ and Mithridates caroused in his victories: taxes were remitted‚ and the structures of Roman rule were replaced by Satraps to oversee the conquered territories.   Idealized view of the Acropolis and the Areopagus in Athens‚ Leo von Klenze‚ 1846. Source Die Pinakotheken   It was around this time that Mithridates was offered some advice by a Greek philosopher at his court. Metrodoros of Skepsis‚ known to be a fervent hater of the Romans‚ suggested that the surest way for the Pontic king to bind the communities under his control to his cause was to massacre — without discrimination of age or sex — the Romans currently residing in Asia. The mass killings were duly coordinated and‚ in the spring of 88 BCE‚ tens of thousands of Romans in Asia were slaughtered on the orders of the Pontic king. The suggestion of Plutarch that one hundred and fifty thousand Romans were slaughtered is double the figure offered by Appian’s history‚ but nevertheless conveys the scale of the bloodletting. One of the more evocative episodes in Appian’s history describes how desperate fugitives tried to seek shelter in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus‚ but they found no sanctuary from the bloodletting in the wondrous structure…   Regardless of the exact figure killed in the Asiatic Vespers‚ as the massacres are sometimes called‚ Mithridates was now in a position to consolidate his control of Asia Minor and establish authority in Greece. Most notably‚ he installed Aristion as a tyrant in the city of Athens‚ symbolizing his domination of the region.   Rome’s Lucky Dictator: Sulla Marches East Portrait of Lucius Cornelius Sulla‚ Pieter Bodart‚ from Henricus Spoor‚ Facissae Utriusque Antiquitatis‚ ca. 1707. Source British Museum   Rome’s fight for vengeance against Mithridates was led by Lucius Cornelius Sulla. The rival of Marius and the future dictator arrived in western Greece with his legions in 87 BCE. The arrival of Roman forces quickly convinced a number of Greek poleis that they should reconsider where their allegiances lay: Thebes‚ along with most of the Peloponnese‚ quickly pledged fealty to Rome once more. Athens‚ however‚ continued to resist. A bitter siege in the winter of 87-6 BCE followed‚ and the city fell to Sulla’s forces. The final pockets of resistance were crushed in pitched battles at Chaeronea and Orchomenus. Victorious‚ Sulla could now claim to have restored Greece to Roman rule.   Portrait of Mithridates VI Eupator‚ Pieter Bodart‚ from Henricus Spoor‚ Facissae Utriusque Antiquitatis‚ ca. 1707. Source British Museum   Fortunately‚ for the defeated Pontic king‚ however‚ the fractious nature of Roman politics in the last decades of the Republic provided an escape route. Although cities in Asia Minor were beginning to rebel against Mithridates‚ the Romans could not coordinate a unified attempt at capturing their enemy. By 85 BCE‚ a meeting was arranged between Sulla and Mithridates at Dardanus. Mithridates accepted the terms offered to him: the return of captured territory in Asia‚ Bithynia‚ and Cappadocia‚ a significant payment‚ and a loan of 70 ships; crucially‚ this last term provided the means for Sulla to sail west‚ back to Rome‚ where he could confront the faction that opposed him. Perhaps this is why King Mithridates was allowed to retain control of his own kingdom‚ despite the huge numbers of Roman dead his war had caused…   Renewed Conflict: The Second Mithridatic War  Bust identified as Sulla‚ 1st century BCE. Source Wikimedia Commons   The First Mithridatic War was ultimately brought to a hasty conclusion‚ in part due to the instability that was again wracking the Republic and the Italian Peninsula. While Sulla sailed back to confront his rivals‚ Marius chief amongst them‚ he left behind in Asia his legate‚ Lucius Licinus Murena‚ who was given the task of commanding two legions to assert Roman dominance in the recently reclaimed region. Peace did not prevail for long. In 83 BCE‚ Murena struck out against Mithridates‚ attacking the town of Comana. The reason for Murena’s aggression‚ according to Appian‚ was the suspicion that Mithridates was raising the forces to once again challenge Rome. In fact‚ it appears that Mithridates’ objective was to quash a rebellion elsewhere in his kingdom; Murena‚ it seems‚ was just ambitious and had designs on being awarded a Triumph if he could defeat Mithridates. Mithridates‚ reluctant to engage in another costly war‚ did not rise to Murena’s provocations and instead turned to diplomacy.   Although senatorial dispatches ordered Murena not to hassle Mithridates‚ these appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Further incursions by the legate prompted Mithridates‚ finally‚ to retaliate. This was bad news for Murena‚ who was promptly defeated by a force led by Gordius‚ Mithridates’ commander. Murena’s flight also had the disastrous effect of prompting other cities in Asia Minor to switch allegiances once again. Despite this‚ when Sulla heard of the conflict‚ he was reluctant to pursue a war against Mithridates: the Pontic king‚ after all‚ had not broken the treaty. In the end‚ Murena was recalled to Rome by Sulla‚ ending the Second Mithridatic War‚ but not the tensions between Rome and the Kingdom of Pontus…   Battling for Bithynia: Lucullus and the Third Mithridatic War The Wretchedness of Wealth‚ depicting Lucullus second from left‚ Philips Galle after Maarten van Heemskerck‚ 1563. Source British Museum   In the years following Murena’s recall‚ Rome’s prominence in the eastern Mediterranean continued to grow. Not least‚ the Republic’s efforts to rid the Mediterranean of pirates brought the coastal regions of Lycia and Pamphylia under their sway. At the same time‚ Mithridates had sought to bolster his alliances. He joined with the Cilician pirates and‚ more significantly‚ with Quintus Sertorius‚ in Spain. In 75 BCE‚ the tensions boiled over as the political stability of Asia was again jeopardized. The scene was set for the decisive showdown between Rome and Pontus.   This time‚ the catalyst was the death of Nicomedes IV‚ the ruler of Bithynia. Like other kings in the region‚ Nicomedes had left his kingdom to Rome in the absence of any heirs:  most famously‚ Attalus III‚ the ruler of Pergamon‚ had done exactly this in 133 BCE. As Rome mobilized its forces‚ Mithridates struck out an‚d in 73 BCE‚ invaded Bithynia. The early exchanges of the war were indecisive: although Mithridates’ fleet defeated the Romans at Chalcedon‚ the Roman commander‚ Lucius Licinius Lucullus‚ defeated the Pontic forces in battle and forced them to retreat.   In 72 BCE‚ the tide of war turned decisively in the Roman’s favor as Lucullus invaded Galatia and into Pontic territory. Although Pontic cities were sacked by the advancing Romans‚ Mithridates was reluctant to engage in a pitched battle. Instead‚ he attempted a fighting retreat. While heading for Armenia‚ he ordered his cavalry to cut the Roman supply lines in Cappadocia. The cavalry was defeated and‚ now without his mobile forces to protect the retreating armies‚ the withdrawing forces of Mithridates were routed. The king himself fled to Armenia.   A Summer Repast at the House of Lucullus‚ Gustave Boulanger‚ 1877. Source Wikimedia Commons   Lucullus was not to be put off the chase‚ however. In 69 BCE‚ he invaded Armenian territory. His aim was to capture the city of Tigranocerta‚ the capital of Tigranes’ kingdom. Although he was confronted by a vast force of heavily armored cataphracts at the Battle of Tigranocerta‚ Lucullus was victorious. Lucullus demolished the city and reorganized the kingdom‚ returning territory to Seleucid control. Mithridates himself‚ however‚ had still avoided capture. In 67 BCE‚ he returned to Pontus where he defeated a large Roman army at Zela. As for the now fabulously wealthy Lucullus‚ his consular authority expired and he was replaced in the field by two new leaders‚ Marcius Rex and Acilius Glabrio. But‚ while Mithridates and Tigranes quickly strove to recover lost territory in Pontus and Cappadocia‚ another Roman general was heading their way…   Pompey the Great vs the Pontic Kingdom Portrait of Pompey the Great‚ 30-50 CE‚ New Carlsberg Glyptotek‚ Copenhagen. Source The Metropolitan Museum of Art   In 67 BCE‚ the Senate gave an extraordinary and far-reaching range of powers to a man who‚ only a few years previously‚ had won for himself the rather alarming nickname‚ adulescentulus carnifex (“the teenage butcher”). The man was Pompey the Great‚ and he had been given extensive proconsular imperium to definitively handle Rome’s pirate problem in the eastern Mediterranean. This also brought him into Mithridates’ sphere of influence. With the pirates defeated by 66 BCE‚ Pompey was given the authority to resolve Rome’s difficulties in Pontus (this was called the Lex Manilia).   Reluctant again to be drawn into a decisive pitched battle‚ Mithridates attempted to lure Pompey’s forces into the interior of the Pontic Kingdom‚ from where he could harass and harangue the Roman supply lines. The approach failed though‚ and Pompey’s strategizing allowed him to score a significant victory at the Battle of the Lycus River in 66 BCE. In the aftermath‚ Pompey launched a campaign against Tigranes in Armenia‚ shattering the power of Mithridates’ erstwhile ally against Rome. Tigranes sued for peace and became an allied client state of the Republic. Perhaps surprisingly‚ Tigranes was allowed to remain as king. This may have been expediency on Pompey’s part‚ so as not to destabilize the region further‚ allowing him to focus his efforts solely on Mithridates.   Drug Jar for Mithridate‚ attributed to Annibale Fontana‚ ca. 1580. Source Getty Museum Collection   Further battles between Pompey and the Pontic forces (and their Iberian allies) were waged in the year that followed. By 65 BCE‚ another defeat compelled Mithridates to retreat to the Crimea. There‚ on the very fringes of his kingdom‚ he tried to raise an army to confront the Romans once again. This time‚ he was unsuccessful; increasingly desperate and isolated from former allies‚ Mithridates retreated to the city of Panticapeaum. Now‚ even his sons turned against him and the dynasty began to disintegrate. First‚ the elder son‚ Machares‚ was unwilling to come to his father’s aid; he was promptly murdered. But‚ the younger son – Pharnaces II – rebelled against his father‚ finding much support and popularity from the Pontic populace‚ wearied after so much war.   The familial treachery destroyed Mithridates’ confidence and shattered any vestigial illusion of authority‚ so the king decided that he would have to commit suicide. Even this was botched‚ however‚ as the once mighty king’s life ended in farce. As described by Appian‚ having for so long been paranoid of poisoners trying to take his life‚ Mithridates had built up an immunity to various toxins by ingesting small doses. The ploy worked so well‚ that Mithridates attempts at suicide failed! Left with no alternative‚ Mithridates ordered his bodyguard‚ a certain Bituitius‚ to kill him. With the death of the king‚ the third and final Mithridatic war was brought to an end.   The End of the Mithridatic Wars: Roman Triumphs  The Triumph of Pompey‚ Gabriel de Saint-Aubin‚ 1765. Source Metropolitan Museum of Art   After Mithridates’ death in 63 BCE‚ the territory of the former kingdom was annexed by the Romans. It was included within the empire as part of the province of Bithynia et Pontus. It was this province that‚ a century or so later‚ would be governed by Pliny the Younger (and the subject of many of his letters to the emperor Trajan).   As for Pompey‚ the successes in the east‚ including his victory in the Third Mithridatic War‚ would be celebrated by one of the Republic’s most famous and spectacular celebrations: the third of his three triumphs‚ in 61 BCE. This was a celebration of military prowess‚ conquered territories‚ and pillaged loot so exorbitant that it took two whole days to complete! While his defeat of Mithridates cemented Rome’s control of the eastern Mediterranean‚ the wealth and prestige Pompey won fuelled the deepening political tensions in the Republic. With so few enemies left to fight‚ soon‚ the Romans would turn on each other…